Hindu joint family

This tag is associated with 4 posts

Hindu succession Act – scope of sec. 6 and sec. 8 = a suit for declaration that sale deed dated 19.6.1993 executed by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.1 is illegal, void, without jurisdiction and inoperative on the rights of the appellant with consequential relief of possession and permanent prohibitory injunction. = 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the property in dispute has devolved upon the heirs of Baba Surinder Singh Bedi under proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act. 2. Whether in view of the proviso of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act the succession of property of Baba Surinder Singh Bedi on his heirs under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act will change the nature and nomenclature of property from ancestral/coparcenary property to that of self acquired property. = “6. When a male Hindu dies after the commencement of this Act, having at the time of his death an interest in a Mitakshara coparcenary property, his interest in the property shall devolve by survivorship upon the surviving members of the coparcenary and not in accordance with this Act: Provided that, if the deceased had left his surviving a female relative specified in Class I of the Schedule or a male relative, specified in that class who claims, through such female relative, the interest of the deceased in the Mitakshara coparcenary property shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as the case may be, under this Act and not by survivorship. Explanation I. – For the purposes of this section, the interest of a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to be the share in the property that would have been allotted to him if a partition of the property had taken place immediately before his death, irrespective of whether he was entitled to claim partition or not.” The interest of Nanak Chand shall be deemed to be the share in the property that would have been allotted to him if a partition of the property had taken place immediately before his death irrespective of whether he was entitled to claim partition or not. In view of Explanation I of Sec. 6, Nanak Chand would have got 1/5th interest on partition between him and his wife and three sons. If once the interest of Nanak Chand is determined to be 1/5th before his death, his interest would devolve upon his widow, three sons and three daughters equally and thus the share of each one of them would be 1/5 x 1/7, that is, 1/35th each. The claim of these heirs cannot be denied merely because some of them have not advanced the claim. When the question of determination of share among the heirs crops up before the Court, the Court has to see that every heir gets his due. Shri Itorora appearing for the respondents could not successfully meet the point raised on behalf of the appellant.” = The bare perusal of Section 6 of the Act makes it clear that in this situation the estate of Baba Surinder Singh would devolve under Section 8 and not under Section 6 of the Act. In view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, respondent No.2 would inherit his share in the estate of late Baba Surinder Singh in his individual capacity and not alongwith his son appellant. Once this is the position then the appellant has no right to assail the sale dated 19.6.1993 made by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.1.

published in IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA R.S.A.No. 482 of 2000. Judgment reserved on : 6.5.2010 Date of decision : 14.6. 2010. Capt. Arminder Singh Bedi (Amninder Singh Bedi) ..Appellant. Versus Guru Nanak Dev University and another . ..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 … Continue reading

Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1. Estate of S should normally have devolved upon his children in accordance with the shares as defined by the Shariat Law. But since the properties were Inams and impartible and the services to the Ruler due from the members of the family were expected to be taken from the eldest son by the rule of primogeniture, then the heirs of S, even though not forming a joint Hindu Family as is known to Hindu Law, would still be a group of people, the representative of which was A in order to hold the Inam. Once that Inam was abolished and re-grant given to A, impartibility of the estate vanished and thus this group of people were definitely entitled to claim their respective shares in accordance with the law of Shariat. There is no impelling reason to draw a line of distinction qua the two cases in Nagcsh Bisto Desai* and Annasaheb Bapitsaheb** so as to carve out an exception to the principle for Mohammedans. The prime reason for such interpretation is that the Ruler while drawing up the Inam initially and conferring it again on A did not intend to create any distinc-tion between his subjects, be it Muslims or Hindus. Uniformity of tradition in that regard would be a good rule of reason so as to set the matter at rest here. [175-B-E] *Nagesh Bisto Desai Etc. Etc. v. Khando Tirmal Desai Etc. [1982] 3 SCR 341; ** Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil and Ors. v. Balwant (dead) by Lrs. and heirs and Ors. [1995] 2 SCC 543, relied on. 2. It is true that some evidence, basically of Municipal register entries, were inducted to prove the point of adverse possession but no amount of proof can substitute pleadings which are the foundation of the claim of a litigating party. The finding relating to the plea of adverse possession was rightly reversed by the High Court. [175-G-H; 176-A] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2750 of 1977.


“Till disruption of joint family status takes place no coparcener can claim what is his exact share in coparcenary property. It is liable to increase and decrease depending upon the addition to the number or departure of a male member and inheritance by survivorship. But once a disruption of joint family status takes place, coparceners cease to hold the property as joint tenants but they hold as tenants-in-common.”

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7179 OF 2005 Man Singh (D) By LRs. …… Appellant Vs. Ram Kala (D) By LRs. & Ors. …… Respondents JUDGMENT R.M. LODHA, J. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment dated January 7, 2004 passed by the High … Continue reading

Hindu Law–Mitakshara School of Hindu Law-Gift by a Coparcener of his undivided coparcenary interest to another coparcener without consent of other coparceners–Whether valid or void–Held-Valid. Hindu Succession Act 1956–Section 30—Interpretation of.

PETITIONER: THAMMA VENKATA SUBBAMMA (DEAD) BY L.R. Vs. RESPONDENT: THAMMA RATTAMMA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT06/05/1987 BENCH: DUTT, M.M. (J) BENCH: DUTT, M.M. (J) NATRAJAN, S. (J) CITATION: 1987 AIR 1775 1987 SCR (3) 236 1987 SCC (3) 294 JT 1987 (2) 440 1987 SCALE (1)1000 ACT: Hindu Law–Mitakshara School of Hindu Law-Gift by a … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,887,199 hits



Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com