Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.31 seconds)Section 30 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
The Indian Succession Act, 1925
Goli Eswariah vs Commissioner Of Glft Tax, Andhra ... on 5 May, 1970
22. Unfortunately, the word disposition itself emerged from the
English language and law and hence the manner in which law dictionaries have
expounded the term, is in tune more with linguistics than with law. This is
perhaps why the Supreme court pointed out in Goli Eswariah vs. Commissioner
of Gift Tax {AIR 1970 SC 1722} that the word disposition is not a term of
law, having a precise meaning and that its meaning has to be gathered from
the context in which it is used.
Sanjay Dinkar Asarkar vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr. on 20 November, 1985
The word disposition in relation to property means disposition made by deed
or will and also disposition made by or under a decree or under order of a
Court as the qualifying phrase used in Section 21(2), viz., including any
transfer in execution of a decree or order of a Court, Tribunal or authority
(Sanjay v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1986 SC 414).
S. Rathinam @ Kuppamuthu & Ors vs L.S. Mariappan & Ors on 18 May, 2007
32. Therefore, I am of the considered view that in cases where
the testator was alive as on 20-12-2004, the Will, even if any executed by
him genuinely before the said date, would not make it a case of testamentary
disposition which had taken place, so as to make the case fall under the
proviso and to take it out of the application of section 6(1). In other
words, a case will fall under the proviso to section 6(1), only if 2 things
had taken place before 20-12 2004 namely (i) execution of a Will and (ii) the
death of the testator. The execution of the Will before 20-12 2004 alone is
not sufficient to take a case out of the operation of section 6(1), as no
disposition under the Will would have taken place, if the testator was alive.
As pointed by the Supreme court in S.Rathinam vs. Mariappan {AIR 2007 SC
2134}, a Will of a man is the aggregate of his testamentary intentions
manifested in writing and is not a transfer.
K.V.Ramasamy vs K.V.Rahgavan on 4 August, 2009
In 2009 4 CTC 440 (K.V.Ramasamy Vs. K.V.Raghavan and others)
B, this court had held that after the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act,
1956 as amended to Act 39 of 2005, the daughters are to be treated equally as
coparceners along with the sons. Consequently, in this case, when the Act
came into force and when the will was not produced or revealed, the three
Plaintiffs and the Defendants 1 and 2 and their father Sangaiah Servai became
entitled to an undivided 1/6th share in the suit properties.