Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.24 seconds)The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
V. Tulasamma & Ors vs V. Sesha Reddi (Dead) By L. Rs on 17 March, 1977
The aforementioned ratio decidendi in the judgments cited supra has been
9 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 24-03-2019 13:00:31 :::
RSA No. 4796 of 2016(O&M) 10
culled out by relying upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in V.Tulsamma v. V.Sesha Reddy, 1977(3) SCC 99. One line in
the Will would not debar the beneficiary from willing the property as the
testator did not envisage or envision myriad circumstances which may have
occurred during the life time of the beneficiary. It is a common practice
amongst the executor after execution of the registered document to take the
plea of having been duped, duress, coercion and fraud but in order to
substantiate such plea proper and cogent evidence is required to be led
which is conspicuously wanting in the present case thus the provisions of
Section 14(2) of 1956 Act in this case would not apply. Thus, the argument
of Mr. Kalia is hereby rejected. The aforementioned provisions of law have
not been taken into consideration by the Court while partly decreeing the
suit. The substantial question of law is thus answered in favour of the
appellants and against the respondents.
Joginder Kaur vs Jagtar Singh on 9 October, 2014
RSA No. 5782 of 2016
titled as Jaswant Kaur(since deceased) through LRs Jogoinder Kaur and
others v. Jagtar Singh and others arises out of Civil Suit No. 161 of 2009
titled as Jaswant Kaur(since deceased) through LRs Joginder Kaur and
others v. Jagtar Singh and others which was dismissed by the trial Court and
affirmed by the Lower Appellate Court. Since common questions of fact and
law muchless the suit property are the same, therefore, all the three appeals
are being disposed of by this common order.
Jupudy Pardha Sarathy vs Pentapati Rama Krishna & Ors on 6 November, 2015
The relevant paras of Jupudy Pradha Sarathy's case(supra) are
reproduced here as follows:-
Section 4 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Nazar Singh And Ors vs Jagjit Kaur And Ors on 13 November, 1995
In the case of Nazar Singh and Others vs. Jagjit Kaur and
Others, (1996) 1 SCC 35, this Court following the decision in
Tulasamma's case held as under:- "9.
Mangat Mal (Dead) And Anr vs Smt. Punni Devi (Dead) And Ors on 1 September, 1995
[Also see the recent decision of this
Court in Mangat Mal v. Punni Devi where a right to residence
in a house property was held to attract sub-section (1) of
Section 14 notwithstanding the fact that the grant expressly
conferred only a limited estate upon her.]
According to sub-section (1), where any property is given to a
female Hindu in lieu of her maintenance before the
commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, such property
becomes the absolute property of such female Hindu on the
commencement of the Act provided the said property was
'possessed' by her. Where, however, the property is given to a
female Hindu towards her maintenance after the
commencement of the Act, she becomes the absolute owner
thereof the moment she is placed in possession of the said
property (unless, of course, she is already in possession)
notwithstanding the limitations and restrictions contained in the
instrument, grant or award whereunder the property is given to
her. This proposition follows from the words in sub-section (1),
which insofar as is relevant read: "Any property possessed by a
female Hindu ... after the commencement of this Act shall be
held by her as full owner and not as a limited owner."
In other words, though the instrument, grant, award or deed
creates a limited estate or a restricted estate, as the case may be,
it stands transformed into an absolute estate provided such
property is given to a female Hindu in lieu of maintenance and
is placed in her possession. So far as the expression 'possessed'
is concerned, it too has been the subject-matter of interpretation
by several decisions of this Court to which it is not necessary to
refer for the purpose of this case."
Joginder Kaur vs Jaswant Singh on 1 August, 1997
This order of mine shall dispose of three Regular Second
Appeals. RSA No. 4796-2016 titled as Dilbagh Singh and others v. Joginder
Kaur and others as well as RSA No. 1960 of 2017, Joginder Kaur and
another vs. Jaswant Kaur and others have arisen out of a decision rendered
in Civil Suit No. 50 of 2011 titled as Joginder Kaur and others v. Jaswant
2 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 24-03-2019 13:00:31 :::
RSA No. 4796 of 2016(O&M) 3
Kaur and others wherein suit laying challenge to the sale deed dated
30.05.2011 executed by Jaswant Kaur (since deceased) in favour of
subsequent vendees i.e. appellants in RSA No. 4796 of 2016 was partly
decreed whereby three sale deeds of the same date were set aside and
challenge to the mortgage deeds was negated. Two appeals by both the
respective parties were filed. Same were dismissed.