Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.27 seconds)Manibhai vs Hemraj on 21 March, 1990
17. Further, as per the decision reported in (1990) 3 Supreme Court Cases 68 (Manibhai and others Vs. Hemraj and others), it could be seen that alienation of Joint family property by father to satisfy debts contracted even for his personal benefit and without any legal necessity is binding on his sons on the basis of doctrine of pious obligation if the alienation is not avyavharik or tainted with immorality or illegality and the debts were antecedent in fact as well as in time to the alienation. From the above decisions, therefore it could be seen that inasmuch the plaintiffs are claiming only undivided interest in the suit properties, it could be seen that the first defendant is not necessitated to seek permission of the court to alienate the suit properties as the Kartha of his family.
Section 6 in The Hindu Minority And Guardianship Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The Hindu Minority And Guardianship Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Sri Narayan Bal And Others vs Sri Sridhar Sutar And Others on 29 January, 1996
A perusal of the decision reported in AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2371 (Sri Narayan Bal and others Vs. Sridhar Sutar and others), would go to show that Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, in view of the express terms of Sections 6 & 12 of the above said Act, would not be applicable where a joint Hindu family property is sold /disposed of by the Kartha involving an undivided interest of the minor in the said joint Hindu family property.
Uttam vs Saubhag Singh & Ors on 2 March, 2016
24. As per the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, considering the devolution of interest under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, amongst the Class-I heirs, the properties derived by the first defendant from his father could only be treated as his separate properties and not as the joint family properties of the first defendant and his children viz. the plaintiff 2 and 3. With reference to the above position of law, there are ample authorities and in this connection, a useful reference may be made to the decisions reported in AIR 1979 MADRAS 1 (The Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras-1 V. P.L.Karuppan Chettiar), 1993 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 580 (Commissioner of Income Tax V. P.L.Karuppan Chettiar), (1986) 3 Supreme Court Cases 567 (Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur and Others V. Chander Sen And Others), (2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases 87 (Bhanwar Singh V. Puran And Others) and the latest decision (2016) 4 Supreme Court Cases 68 (Uttam V. Saubhag Singh and Others). A perusal of the above said decisions would go to show that when the son inherits the property, as per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, he does not take it as Kartha of his own undivided family, but take it in his individual capacity. Therefore, it could be seen that as per the authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court and our High Court, the suit properties derived by the first defendant under Ex.A6 could only be treated as the separate properties of the first defendant and not the joint family properties of the first defendant and the plaintiffs 2 and 3 as claimed by the plaintiffs. It could be seen that in toto, on a conjoint reading of Sections 4,8,19 and 30 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, if the self acquired property or joint family property, once they get devolved in accordance with Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, on principles of intestacy, the joint family property ceases to be joint family property in the hands of the various persons, who have succeeded to it as they hold the property as tenants in common and not as joint tenants.
Pralhad & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 15 September, 2010
26. The decision relied upon by the respondent counsel reported in (2010) 10 Supreme Court Cases 458 (Pralhad and others V. State of Maharashtra and another) is found to be not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as it is found that no ground is made out to interfere with the findings of the first appellate court declining the relief of maintenance granted in favour of the first plaintiff by the trial court.