Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.66 seconds)Section 6 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003
The Registration Act, 1908
Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma & Ors on 15 May, 2018
26.This was invoked by the appellate court to decide
that notional partition ought to have been presumed, on
the date of the death of Ammaiyappa Gounder I.e., in the
year 1973. On his death, Ammaiyappa Gounder was entitled
to half share in all the properties. In the half share
only, the plaintiff is entitled for equal share with that
of the son. If the contention of the appellant/plaintiff
is accepted that the date of death of Ammaiyappa Gounder
is not the deciding factor, then as per the amended
provision, she is entitled for half share in all the
properties. But this was not the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma's case.
Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma on 15 October, 2019
21.Now coming back to the substantial question of
law, as mentioned above, in Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12/25
SA(MD)No.220 of 2021
Sharma and others 2020(9) SCC 1 : 2020(5) CTC 302 to hold
that the death of the ancestor is not a deciding factor
and the daughter is also entitled at par with the son,
she can get the equal share. Appellate court is of the
view that the father died on 19/1/1973. As per section 6
of the unamended Hindu Succession Act, partition opened
on that date. Notional partition occurred. By virtue of
the notional partition, the father, the deceased
Ammaiyappa Gounder and the deceased son namely
Chidambaram are entitled to get half share. The plaintiff
is entitled to share in father's share. By doing so, it
is decided that in the entire property, the plaintiff is
entitled to 1/4th share.
1