Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.16 seconds)Hanso Patak vs Harmandil Patak And Anr. on 2 February, 1934
In fact in Hanso Pathak v.
Harmandil Pathak and Anr. (supra) it has been made clear
that in the United Provinces the income received as amounts
paid by Yajamans at their discretion either by way of chari-
ty or by way of remuneration for personal services rendered
by the priest, cannot be claimed as of right, and cannot
amount to a family property. Chief Justice Sulaiman ex-
pressed his view that the income received as amounts paid by
people at their discretion either by way of charity or by
way of remuneration for personal services rendered cannot be
claimed as of right amount to family property. Mukerji,
J.in a concurring judgment after distinguishing
Dular Koer vs Dwarka Nath Misser on 7 March, 1905
In support of his contention the learned counsel
referred to Mulla's Hindu Law, 14th Ed., p.403, paragraph
315, where it is stated that while the wife cannot demand a
partition, but if a partition does take place between her
husband and his sons, she is entitled to receive a share
equal to that of a son and to hold and enjoy that share
separately even from her husband. To the same effect is the
passage in Mayne's Hindu Law, 11th Ed., p. 534, paragraph
434, where it is stated "According to the Mitakshara law,
the mother or the. grandmother is entitled to a share when
sons or grandsons divide the family estate between them-
selves, but she cannot be recognised as the owner of such
share until the division is actually made, as she has no
pre-existing right in the estate except a right of mainte-
nance." Reference
407
was also made to the decisions reported in Dular Koeri v.
Dwarkanath Misser(1), where it was held that under the
Mitakshara law when partition of joint family property
takes place during the father's lifetime at the,instance of
the son, the mother of the son is entitled to a share equal
to that of her husband and her son and she is entitled o
have the share separately allotted and to enjoy that share
when so allotted.
Article 133 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Partap Singh vs Dalip Singh on 22 January, 1930
In Partap Singh v.
Dalip Singh, (4) in a partition between a Hindu father and
his son it was held that the wife of the .father has a right
to a share equal to that of the father or the sons. In
Madras, though Mitakshara law is applicable it has been
held that on a partition between the sons and the father,
the mother is not entitled to any share. (Mulla's Hindu
Law, 14th Ed., p.403--"Madras State.--In Southern India the
practice of allotting shares upon partition to females has
long since become obsolete."). So far as Jammu & Kashmir is
concerned there is no decisions regarding the interest of a
male Hindu in property. This question as. to what is the
interest of Mani Ram in the joint family property at the
time of his death was not, raised before the High Court. In
fact, the case first appellant was that the joint family
consisted of himself and his father alone, though in the
partition suit filed by him he claimed onethird share con-
ceding that his father and mother are entitled to the other
two-third share. Though the question was not raised in any
of the courts below, we feel that being a pure question of
law, interests of justice require that the question be
decided. The High Court will decide the interest which Mani
Ram had in the joint family property at the time of his
death which he could dispose of by his will. In remitting
this question to the High Court, we decree he suit of the
respondent in respect of item 1 (a) one-third share in items
1 (b) and 2 of the plaint schedule properties as to that
extent her share is not questioned. The question as to what
is the extent of the interest as regards items 1 (b) and 2
of the plaint schedule properties which can be bequeathed by
Mani Ram in favour of the respondent is remitted to the High
Court for its determination. If the High Court finds that
the respondent is entitled to one-third share it will decide
accordingly. If it comes to the conclusion that Mani Ram
was. entitled to bequeath a greater share it will grant a
decree accordingly. There will be no order as to
costs--appeal disposed of accordingly.
Hosbanna Devanna Naik vs Devanna Sannappa Naik on 7 March, 1924
In Hosbanna
Devanna Naik v. Devenna Sannappa Naik and Others(3), it was
held that a step-mother is entitled to a share on parti-
tion between the father and his sons.
1