Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.44 seconds)The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Thamma Venkata Subbamma (Dead) By L.R vs Thamma Rattamma & Ors on 6 May, 1987
24. Mulla's Hindu Law, 22nd Edn. vide Article 262, states
that a coparcener may renounce his interest in favour of the
other coparceners as a body, but not in favour of one or
more of them. When he renounces in favour of one or
more of them, the renunciation enures for the benefit of
all other coparceners and not for the sole benefit of the
coparcener or coparceners in whose favour the
renunciation is made. A similar exposition vide Article 407
in Mayne's Treatise on Hindu Law and Usage, 17th Edn.,
states that a gift by a coparcener of his entire undivided
interest in favour of the other coparcener or coparceners is
Digitally Signed CS(OS) 2382/2007 Page 42 of 75
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:23.01.2025
15:47:28
valid whether it is regarded as one made with the consent of
the other or others or as a renunciation of his interest in
favour of all. Referring to the judgment in Thamma Venkata
Subbamma [Thamma Venkata Subbamma v. Thamma
Rattamma, (1987) 3 SCC 294], Mayne's Treatise on Hindu
Law and Usage observes that renunciation in the form of
ostensible gift may have the effect of relinquishment and if it
enures for the benefit of all the coparceners, such gift would
be construed as valid. In addition, Mulla's Hindu Law, 22nd
Edn. recognises that a father or other managing member of
the ancestral immovable property can make gifts within
reasonable limits for ―pious purposes‖. [See Articles 223
and 224 at pp. 332 and 333, Mulla's Hindu Law, 22nd Edn.]
(emphasis supplied)