Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (1.85 seconds)The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Section 4 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Woman Govind Shindore And Ors. vs Gopal Baburao Chakradeo And Ors. on 21 December, 1983
In the judgement reported in 1983 SCC Online Bombay 304 (Waman
Govind Shindore v. Gopal Baburao Chakradeo), it has been held in
paragraph 13 that on a plain reading of the provisions of section 18 of the
Act of 1956, it appears to be clear that it is nothing but a substantial
reproduction of the prevalent rule of Hindu Law under which relations of
the whole blood were preferred to those of the half-blood if their degree of
relationship to the deceased was the same. Section 18 provides for a
preference of one category of heirs to another.
Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma on 11 August, 2020
The
learned counsel while referring to the aforesaid page has
referred to Article 212 dealing with formation of coparcenary
and has submitted that conception of a joint Hindu Family
constituting a coparcenary is that of a common male ancestor
with his lineal descendants in the male line within four degrees
counting from and inclusive of such ancestor (or three degree
exclusive of the ancestor). No coparcenary can commence
without a common male ancestor, though after his death, it may
consist of collaterals such as brothers, uncles, nephew, cousins
etc. The learned counsel while referring to this has submitted
that all the four sons of Gudru Gope, constituted coparcenary.
He has relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court reported in (2020) 9 SCC 1 (Vinita Sharma versus
Rakesh Sharma) and has referred to paragraph no. 66, 69, 73
and 129 of the said judgment to submit that coparcenary
continues till there is actual partition. Therefore, the learned
court has rightly held that property was coparcenary property.
Arunachala Gounder (Dead) By Lrs vs Ponnusamy on 20 January, 2022
29. It has been held in the judgement passed in the case of Arunachala
Gounder v. Ponnusamy, (2022) 11 SCC 520 that if a property of a male
Hindu dying intestate is a self-acquired property or obtained in partition of
a coparcenary or a family property, the same would devolve by
inheritance and not by survivorship, and a daughter of such a male Hindu
would be entitled to inherit such property in preference to other
collaterals.
Mallesappa Bandeppa Desai And Others vs Desai Mallappa And Others on 9 February, 1961
49. The learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment
reported in 1994 0 AIR (AP) 134 [Jupudi Venkata Vijaya Bhaskar -vs-
Jupudi Kesava Rao (died)] wherein it has been observed by referring to
an earlier judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the separate
property of a member of a joint Hindu family may be impressed with the
character of joint family property if it is voluntarily thrown by him into
the common stock with the intention of abandoning his separate claim
therein. The separate property of a Hindu ceases to be a separate property
and acquires the characteristic of a joint family or ancestral property not
by any physical mixing with his joint family or his ancestral property but
by his own volition and intention by his waiving and surrendering his
separate rights in it as separate property. The necessary pre-condition for
the application of the doctrine of Blending is the existence of coparcenary
property as recognized by the Supreme Court in Mallesappa Ban-deepa
Desai v. Desai Mallappa, AIR 1961 SC 1268 that the doctrine of
47
2025:JHHC:35111
throwing into common stock inevitably postulates that the owner of a
separate property is a coparcener who has an interest in the coparcenary
property and desires to blend his separate property with the coparcenary
property. In the said case there was no coparcenary property and the plaint
schedule properties were alleged to be joint family properties and
accordingly, the question of blending separate property with the
coparcenary property did not arise. By mere declaration of status as
"hindu Undivided Family", it could not be said that the party had blended
his private properties with that of the joint family properties.
D.S. Lakshmaiah & Anr vs L. Balasubramanyam & Anr on 27 August, 2003
In the facts of the said case in (2003) 10 SCC 310 (supra) the Hon'ble
Supreme court held in paragraph 17 of the judgement that the respondents
of the said case having failed to discharge the initial burden of
establishing that there was any nucleus in the form of any income
whatsoever from Item 2 property and no other nucleus was claimed, the
burden remained on the respondents to establish that Item 1 property was
50
2025:JHHC:35111
joint family property. The Court further recorded that in this view, the fact
that the first appellant has not led any evidence to establish his separate
income is of no consequence insofar as the claim of the respondents is
concerned. Under these circumstances, for failure to lead evidence, the
respondents' claim of Item 1 to be joint family property would fail as was
rightly held by the first appellate court in the said case before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court .
Randhi Appalaswami vs Randhi Suryanarayanamurti on 2 July, 1947
a. In Appalaswami v. Suryanarayanamurti [AIR 1947 PC 189 : 1947
All LJ 587] the Privy Council held that as per Hindu law proof of the
existence of a joint family does not lead to the presumption that
property held by any member of the family is joint, and the burden
rests upon anyone asserting that any item of property is joint to
establish the fact. But where it is established that the family possessed
some joint property which from its nature and relative value may have
formed the nucleus from which the property in question may have
been acquired, the burden shifts to the party alleging self-acquisition
48
2025:JHHC:35111
to establish affirmatively that the property was acquired without the
aid of the joint family property.
Shrinivas Krishnarao Kango vs Narayan Devji Kango And Others on 23 March, 1954
b. In Srinivas Krishnarao Kango v. Narayan Devji Kango [AIR 1954
SC 379] the contention that was urged on behalf of the appellant was
that the burden was wrongly cast on the plaintiff of proving that the
acquisition of the properties were made with the aid of joint family
funds as there were joint family properties to the extent of 56 acres
and accordingly it must be presumed that the acquisitions were made
with the aid of joint family funds and, therefore, the burden lay on the
defendants who claimed that they were self-acquired acquisitions to
establish that they were made without the aid of joint family funds.
The Hon'ble supreme court rejected the argument and held that only
properties were proved but there was no satisfactory evidence about
the income which those lands were yielding at the material time and
the important thing to be considered is the income which the nucleus
yields and explained further by giving an example that a building in
the occupation of the members of a family and yielding no income
could not be a nucleus out of which acquisitions could be made, even
though it might be of considerable value and on the other hand, a
running business, in which the capital invested is comparatively small,
might conceivably produce substantial income which may well form
the foundation of the subsequent acquisitions.