Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.27 seconds)Section 18 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Jaria Devi vs Shyam Sundar Agarwalla And Ors. on 3 June, 1957
5. I propose to consider the case of Jaria Devi, AIR 1959 Cal 338 first. In that case the facts were entirely different inasmuch as the widow co-sharer had been allotted properties under a deed, which was described as a deed of partition, not strictly according to her share. It was expressly stipulated in the deed that the widow would have no more than a life interest in the properties allotted to her. The Court construed the document as a deed of family arrangement and held that the case falls within the Exception of Section 14(2) and not within the general rule contained in Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. In the instant case it is the admitted position that Lachhia Sahuain, the appellant, had been allotted property according to her share. There is no stipulation in the deed that she would have only a life interest in the property allotted to her. As the facts of the case of Jaria Devi, AIR 1959 Cal 338 were entirely different, the decision in that case does not in any way support the contention raised on behalf of the respondent.
Gadam Reddayya vs Varapula Venkataraju And Anr. on 14 July, 1964
It is clear from this judgment that merely because a family settlement has been arrived at evidenced by an instrument of partition, it will not preclude the application of Section 14(1). Likewise, merely because a restriction on the right of alienation has been imposed, even then, it will not preclude the application of Section 14(1). The crux of the matter is whether what the lady has acquired is something to which she had no pre-existing right or she had a right to it. Of course, there may be several other considerations in determining the real character of the instrument, but the two facts referred to above, i.e., merely because it is a family settlement or merely because there may be certain restrictions, will not take the document out of the scope of Section 14(1) and place it within the ambit of Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act. In my opinion, the decision of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh on this point lays down the correct law and the Calcutta decision referred to above, in terms does not appear to be sound.
Article 315 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Hindu Women's Rights To Property Act, 1937
Section 14 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 32 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Raghunath Sahu And Anr. vs Bhimsen Naik And Anr. on 24 July, 1964
In support of his contention that the instant case comes within the purview of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied on the following cases, namely, Raghunath Sabu v. Bhimsen Naik, AIR 1965 Orissa 59; Rangaswami Naicker v. Cninnammal, AIR 1964 Mad 387; Sasadhar Chandra v. Sm. Tara Sundari Dasi, AIR 1962 Cal 438 and Smt. Sharbali Devi v. Pt. Hiralal, AIR 1964 Punj 114.