Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (1.29 seconds)The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Yudhishter vs Ashok Kumar on 11 December, 1986
"When the aforesaid principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court are applied to the facts of the present case, as the provision of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 are applicable to the case in hand since Raja Ram died in the year 1969, it would be the natural conclusion that the son would succeed on the death of the father as absolute owner and the property would not be deemed to be ancestral property in his hand so as to entitle the grand son to have interest in it. In Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar, the Supreme Court has observed that it would be difficult to hold that property which devolved on a Hindu under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 would be HUF in his hands vis-a- vis his own sons. If that be the position then the property which devolved upon the father of the respondent in the instant case on the demise of his grand father could not be said to be HUF property."
Kakumanu Peda Subbayya Andanother vs Kakumanu Akkamma And Another on 4 September, 1958
But then came the decision in 43 Ind App 151 : (AIR 1916 PC 104) (G) which finally established that a division in status takes place when there is an unambiguous declaration by a coparcener of his intention to separate, and that the very institution of a suit for partition constituted the expression of such an intention. The question then arose how far this principle could be applied, when the suit for partition was instituted not by a major but by a minor acting through his next friend. The view was expressed that as the minor had, under the law, no volition of his own, the rule in question had no application to him. It was not, however, suggested that for that reason no suit for partition could be maintained on behalf of a minor, for such a stand would be contrary to the law as laid down in a series of decisions and must, if accepted, expose the estate of the minor to the perils of waste and spoliation by coparceners acting adversely to him. But what was said was that when a Court decide that a partition is for the benefit of a minor, there is a division brought about by such decision and not otherwise. It would follow from this that if a minor died before the Court decided the question of benefit he would have died an undivided coparcener of his family and his heirs could not continue the action."
Section 7 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
S.P.S. Balasubramanyam vs Suruttayan Alias Andali Padayachi And ... on 29 November, 1991
11. Similarly in the case of S.P.S Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan Alias Andali Padayachi and Ors. 52 (1993) DLT 236 (SC) while going into the said controversy in paragraph 6 held:-
I.K. Mehra vs Wazir Chand Mehra And Ors. on 31 March, 1997
12. This court in the case if I.K. Mehra v. Wazir Chand Mehra and Ors. was also concerned with a similar situation. In the cited case the plaintiff has instituted the suit for declaration claiming 1/5th share in the suit property and partition of the suit property by metes and bounds. The plaintiff in the cited case was the son of the defendant. He had alleged besides other facts that the suit property is ancestral lease hold property in the hands of defendant No. 1 and that plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 are coparcener with defendant No. 1. This court repealed the plea that plaintiff could seek the relief as in the present case and in paragraph 8 noted:
1