Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.31 seconds)
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U. P. vs Ram Rakshpal, Ashok Kumar. on 9 November, 1966 cites

C. N. Arunachala Mudaliar vs C. A. Muruganatha Mudaliar And Another on 14 October, 1953

In the Mudaliars case, the Supreme Court held that, although the grandson has an equal right with the father in the property left by the grandfather, yet, he has an unequal right in the property of his own father. According to the Mitakshara law, the nonancestral acquisitions of a father are capable of being disposed of by him untrammelled by any right of won son. This power of a man over the property acquired by himself or non-ancestral property is deduced from equally clear texts of Hindu law quoted by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. The distinction was important there because the question under consideration before the Supreme Court in that case was whether the father could dispose of non-ancestral property by will and gift to whomsoever he liked. It was held there that the father had such a right. In other words, that was a case in which the rule, that the grandsons vested right by birth in the grandfathers property would operate as a restriction on the powers of the father, did not apply. One of the reasons given in support of this conclusion was that, technically speaking, the term "ancestral property" was restricted to property which comes from an ancestor in the male line.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 117 - B K Mukherjea - Full Document
1   2 Next