Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (1.10 seconds)Section 4 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Indian Succession Act, 1925
Article 59 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Section 6 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Tek Chand Mittal And Another vs Mool Chand (Through Lrs) on 2 April, 2009
debarred from making a Will in respect of coparcenary/ancestral property. The
above view of the learned Single Judge was upheld and approved by a Division
Bench of this court in Tek Chand and Another v. Mool Raj and Others [1997 (2)
Hindu L.R. 306]. In view of the above ratio, the learned District Judge has erred in
upholding the validity of the Will Ex. DW 1/A only to the extent of the interest of the
deceased in the property. Such findings are wrong and liable to be set aside."
The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 34 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
M.R.Vinoda vs M.S.Susheelamma(D) By Lrs.. on 13 December, 2021
4(b) (v) While deciding Civil Appeal No. 2567 of 2017, vide
judgment dated 13.12.2021 (M.R. Vinoda versus M.S. Susheelamma
(D) by LRs and others), Hon'ble Apex Court held that a Karta of a
joint Hindu family can dispose of joint family property involving the
undivided interest of the minor of the family therein. Therefore, the
proposition of the Plaintiff No. 3/ the Appellant (therein) on the
limitation of the power of the Karta to manage and sell the joint Hindu
family property on behalf of the joint family comprising of a minor is
misplaced, as a coparcener has no right to interfere in the act of
management of the joint family affairs. This being the position, a
coparcener cannot seek an injunction restraining the Karta from
alienating joint Hindu family property, but has a right to challenge
alienation, as the alienation is not beyond the scope of challenge by
other members of the joint family, and thereby scrutiny of the court.