Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 37 (0.44 seconds)Section 6 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Section 8 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Amending Act, 1897
The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001
Rohit Chauhan vs Surinder Singh & Ors on 15 July, 2013
14.9. The defendant's contention that the suit properties are not
the self acquired properties of Kandasamy Moopanar but it is the
ancestral properties over which the plaintiff cannot claim a right is no
longer available in the light of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme
20/71
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.259 of 2007
Court reported in (2013) 9 SCC page 419 - Rohit Chauhann Vs.
Surinder Sing and others and therefore it is only Section 8 of the
HSA that would apply and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to the
share declared by the Trial Court.
Parayankandiyil Eravath Kanapravan ... vs K. Devi And Ors. on 22 June, 1989
23. Therefore, the language of the provision as it then stood gave
rise to an anomaly in as much as the status of legitimacy to a child born
out of a void or voidable marriage was dependent upon the marriage
being declared null and void by a decree of annulment of a Court of
law. If a decree was not obtained, then a child born out of such a
marriage would continue to be illegitimate as the protection under
Section 16 of the HMA was available only if there was a decree of
annulment. Secondly, the children born from such void or voidable
marriages were artificially divided into two categories, one for those
37/71
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.259 of 2007
born before its enactment and those born after its enactment. The
anomalies of this Sections have been very succinctly described in the
judgment reported in (1996) 4 SCC - 76 Parayankandiyal Eravath
Kanapravan Kalliani Amma Vs. K.Devi. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
had noted as follows:-