Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.17 seconds)Section 8 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Commissioner Of Wealth Tax. Kanpur Etc. ... vs Chander Sen Etc on 16 July, 1986
This judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chander Sen
(supra) was thereafter followed by the Supreme Court in the case of
Yudhishter Vs. Ashok Kumar, (1987) 1 SCC 204 wherein the Supreme
Court reiterated the legal position that after coming into force of
Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, inheritance of ancestral
property after 1956 does not create an HUF property and inheritance
of ancestral property after 1956 therefore does not result in creation of
an HUF property.
Section 6 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Yudhishter vs Ashok Kumar on 11 December, 1986
This judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chander Sen
(supra) was thereafter followed by the Supreme Court in the case of
Yudhishter Vs. Ashok Kumar, (1987) 1 SCC 204 wherein the Supreme
Court reiterated the legal position that after coming into force of
Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, inheritance of ancestral
property after 1956 does not create an HUF property and inheritance
of ancestral property after 1956 therefore does not result in creation of
an HUF property.
Dayanand Rajan & Anr vs Ram Lal Khattar on 3 January, 2018
Manphool Singh had expired post 1956. Although, it is not pleaded/proved
by the plaintiffs. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "Dayanand Rajan &
Anr. Vs. Ram Lal Khattar" in RFA No. 1064/2017 has clearly held that
detailed facts as required by Order 6 Rule 4 CPC are required to show how
and when, the HUF came into existence, which is not done in the instant
case.
The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988
Neelam & Anr vs Sada Ram & Ors on 30 January, 2013
b) Considering that the property was inherited by defendant no. 1 post 1956,
the property thus, inherited by defendant no. 1 from his father, late Sh.
Manphool is a self acquired property of defendant no. 1, in which, children
of defendant no. 1 i.e. defendant no. 2 and 3 do not acquire any right by
birth. Relaince is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
in "Neelam & Anr. Vs. Sada Ram & Ors." (197 (2013) DLT 52 (CN)).