This tag is associated with 11 posts

Constitution of India 1950, Articles 14 to 17 and 341 & Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950, Para 3. Persons belonging to Schedule Caste – Conversion to Christianity Disentitlement to benefit of constitutional provisions relating to Schedule Castes – Whether legal, valid and constitutional.= PETITIONER: SOOSAI ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=9179

ACT: Constitution of India 1950, Articles 14 to 17 and 341 & Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950, Para 3. Persons belonging to Schedule  Caste –  Conversion  to Christianity Disentitlement  to  benefit  of  constitutional provisions relating  to Schedule  Castes  –  Whether  legal, valid and constitutional. HEADNOTE: The Government  of  India set  up  a  special  Central Assistance … Continue reading

ACT: Hindu Law-Hindu embracing another religion-whether retains original cast. On reconversion to Hinduism-Whether performance of any particular ceremony or expiatory rites necessary. Representation of the people Act.-Parliamentary election-Constituency reserved for scheduled castes-Whether a Hindu Adi Dravida (scheduled cast) on reconversion to Hinduism belongs to scheduled castes. HEADNOTE: The first respondent was elected to the Lok Sabha from a constituency which was reserved for the Scheduled Castes, The appellant challenged the election of the first respondent on the ground that he was not a member of the Scheduled Castes. The election Tribunal found that the first respondent belonged to the Scheduled Caste and upheld the election. Hence this appeal. The appellant urged that the parents and the sisters of the respondent were shown to be Christians and the respondent was born a Christian and there was no way he could acquire a caste and become an Adi Dravida on conversion to Hinduism. Dismissing the appeal. ^ HELD: At all relevant time, the first respondent was a Hindu Adi Dravida and professed no religion other than Hinduism. The precedents particularly those from South India, clearly establish that no particular ceremony is prescribed for reconversion to Hinduism of a person who had earlier embraced another religion. Unless the practice of the Caste makes it necessary no expiatory rites need be performed and, ordinarily, he regains this caste unless the community does not accept him. In fact, it may not be accurate to say that he regains his caste, it may be more accurate to say that he never lost his caste in the first instance when he embraced another religion. The practice of caste however irrational it may appear to our reason and however repugnant it may appear to our moral and social sense, is so deeprooted in the Indian people that its mark does not seem to disappear on conversion to a different religion. If it disappears, it disappears only to re 974 appear on reconversion. The mark of caste does not seem to really disappear even after some generations after conversion. [981A-C] Administrator-General of Madras v. Anandachari & Ors. ILR 9 MADRAS 466, Muthusami Mudalia & Anr. v. Masilamani & Ors. ILR 33 MADRAS 342, Gurusami Nadar v. Irulappa Konar, 67 MADRAS LAW JOURNAL 399, Ramayya v. Mrs. Josephine Elizabeth, AIR 1937 MAD 172, Goona Durgaprasad Rao v. Sudarsanaswami, ILR 1940 MAD 653, Rajgopal v. Armugon & Ors. [1969] I SCR 254, Rajgopal v. Armugam [1969] I SCR 254, Perumal Nadar v; Ponnuswami [1971] I SCR 49, Vermani v. Vermani AIR 1943 LAHORE 51 and Chatturbhuj Vithaldas Jasani v. Moreshwer Parashram & Ors.[1954] SCR 817, referred to.= PETITIONER: S. ANBALAGAN Vs. RESPONDENT: B. DEVARAJAN & ORS.= published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=9653

ACT: Hindu  Law-Hindu embracing  another  religion-whether retains original  cast. On  reconversion to Hinduism-Whether performance of any particular ceremony or  expiatory rites necessary. Representation   of   the  people   Act.-Parliamentary election-Constituency reserved for scheduled castes-Whether a Hindu  Adi Dravida  (scheduled cast) on  reconversion  to Hinduism belongs to scheduled castes.       HEADNOTE: The first respondent … Continue reading

Hindu Succession Act, 1956-ss. 4, 8 and 19-Property of father who dies intestate-Whether devolves on son, who separated by partition from his father, in individual capacity or Karta of his HUF. Wealth Tax Act, 1957-ss. 3 and 4-Property inherited under s 8 Hindu Succession Act, 1956-Whether HUF or individual property. Income Tax Act, 1961/Income Tax Act, 1922-Income from as sets inherited by son from father-Whether assessable as individual income. HEADNOTE: Rangi Lal and his son Chander Sen constituted a Hindu undivided family. They had some immovable property and the family business. By a partial partition the HUF business was divided between the two and thereafter it was carried on by a partnership consisting of the two. The house property of the family continued to remain joint. The firm was assessed to income-tax as a registered firm and the two partners were separately assessed in respect of their share of income. The mother and wife of Rangi Lal having pre-deceased him, when he died he left behind him his only son Chander Sen and his grandsons. On his death there was a credit balance of Rs.1,85,043 in his account in the books of the firm. In the wealth tax assessment for the assessment year 1966-67, Chander Sen, who constituted a joint family with his own sons, filed a return of his net-wealth by including the property of the family which u on the death of Rangi Lal passed on to him by survivorship and, also the assets of the business which devolved upon him on the death of his father. The sum of R.S.. l ,85,0 13 standing to the credit of Rangi Lal was, however, not included in the net-wealth of the assessee-family. Similarly, in the wealth tax assessment for the assessment year 1967-68 a sum of Rs.1,82,742 was not included, in the net wealth of the assessee family. It was contended that these amounts devolved on Chander Sen 255 in his individual capacity and were not the property of the assessee family. The Wealth-tax officer did not accept this contention and held that these sums also belonged to the assessee-family. A sum of Rs.23,330 was also credited to the account of late Rangi Lal on account of interest accruing on his credit balance. In the proceedings under the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 1367-68 this sum was claimed as deduction on the same ground. The Income-tax officer disallowed the claim on the ground that it was a payment made by Chander Sen to himself. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax accepted the assessee’s claim in full and held that the capital in the name of Rangi Lal devolved on Chander Sen in his individual capacity and as such was not to be included in the wealth of the assessee family. The sum of Rs.23,330 on account of interest was also directed to be allowed as deduction. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue and its orders were affirmed by the High Court. On the question: “Whether the income or asset which a son inherits from his father when separated by partition should be assessed as income of the Hindu Undivided Family consisting of his own branch including his sons or his individual income”, dismissing the appeals and Special Leave Petition of the Revenue, the Court, ^ HELD: 1. The sums standing to the credit of Rangi Lal belong to Chander Sen in his individual capacity and not the Joint Hindu Family. The interest of Rs.23,330 was an allowable deduction in respect of the income of the family from the business. [268C-D] 2.1 Under s. 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the property of the father who dies intestate devolves on his son in his individual capacity and not as Karta of his own family. Section 8 lays down the scheme of succession to the property of a Hindu dying intestate. The Schedule classified the heirs on whom such property should devolve. Those specified in class I took simultaneously to the exclusion of all other heirs. A son’s son was not mentioned as an heir under class I of the Schedule, and, therefore, he could not get any right in the property of his grandfather under the provision. [265F-G] 256 2.2 The right of a son’s son in his grandfather’s property during the lifetime of his father which existed under the Hindu law as in force before the Act, was not saved expressly by the Act, and therefore, the earlier interpretation of Hindu law giving a right by birth in such property “ceased to have effect”. So construed, s. 8 of the Act should be taken as a self-contained provision laying down the scheme of devolution of the property of a Hindu dying intestate. Therefore, the property which devolved on a Hindu on the death of his father intestate after the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1356, did not constitute HUF property consisting of his own branch including his sons. [265G-H; 266A-C] 2.3 The Preamble to the Act states that it was an Act to amend and codify the law relating to intestate succession among Hindus. Therefore, it is not possible when the Schedule indicates heirs in class I and only includes son and does not include son’s son but does include son of a predeceased-son, to say that when son inherits the property in the situation contemplated by s. 8, he takes it as Karta of his own undivided family. [267C-D] 2.4 The Act makes it clear by s. 4 that one should look to the Act in case of doubt and not to the pre-existing Hindu law. It would be difficult to hold today that the property which devolved on a Hindu under s. X of the Act would be HUF in his hand vis-a-vis his own son; that would amount to creating two classes among the heirs mentioned in class I, the male heirs in whose hands it will be joint Hindu family property and vis-a-vis sons and female heirs with respect to whom no such concept could be applied or contemplated. [267E-G] 2.5 Under the Hindu law, the property of a male Hindu devolved on his death on his sons and the grandsons as the grandsons also have an interest in the property. However, by reason of s. 8 of the Act, the son’s son gets excluded and the son alone inherits the properly to the exclusion of his son. As the effect of s. 8 was directly derogatory of the law established according to Hindu law, the statutory provisions must prevail in view of the unequivocal intention in the statute itself, expressed in s. 4(1) which says that to the extent to which provisions have been made in the Act, those provisions shall override the established provisions in the texts of Hindu Law. [264G-H; 265A-B] 2.6 The intention to depart from the pre-existing Hindu law was again made clear by s. 19 of the Hindu Succession Act which stated that 257 if two or more heirs succeed together to the property of an intestate, they should take the property as tenants-in- common and not as joint tenants and according to the Hindu law as obtained prior to Hindu Succession Act two or more sons succeeding to their father’s property took a joint tenants and not tenants-in-common. The Act, however, has chosen to provide expressly that they should take as tenants-in-common. Accordingly the property which devolved upon heirs mentioned in class I of the Schedule under s. 8 constituted the absolute properties and his sons have no right by birth in such properties. [266F-H] Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P. v. Ram Rakshpal, Ashok Kumar, 67 I.T.R. 164; Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras v. P.L. Karuppan Chettiar, 114 I.T.R. 523; Shrivallabhdas Modani v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, M.P-I., 138 I.T.R. 673 and Commissioner of Wealth-Tax A.P. II v. Mukundgirji 144 I.T.R. 18, approved. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-l v. Dr. Babubhai Mansukhbai (Deceased), 108 I.T.R. 417, overruled.

published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=8997 PETITIONER: COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX. KANPUR ETC. ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: CHANDER SEN ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT16/07/1986 BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) PATHAK, R.S. CITATION: 1986 AIR 1753 1986 SCR (3) 254 1986 SCC (3) 567 1986 SCALE (2)75 CITATOR INFO : F 1987 SC 558 (10) RF 1991 SC1654 (27) … Continue reading

Hindu law–Illegitimate son of Sudra–Right to demand partition of separate property of father. =Under Hindu law, though an illegitimate son of a Sudra cannot enforce partition during his father’s lifetime, he can enforce partition after his father’s death if the father was separate from his collaterals and has left separate property and legitimate sons. =1952 AIR 225, 1952SCR 869, , ,

PETITIONER: GUR NARAIN DAS AND ANOTHER Vs. RESPONDENT: GUR TAHAL DAS AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/05/1952 BENCH: FAZAL ALI, SAIYID BENCH: FAZAL ALI, SAIYID BOSE, VIVIAN CITATION: 1952 AIR 225 1952 SCR 869 CITATOR INFO : R 1965 SC1970 (3) ACT: Hindu law—Illegitimate son of Sudra–Right to demand partition of separate property of father. … Continue reading

Hindu Law–Marriage between Hindu and former Christian–Proof of conversion to Hinduism–No formal purification ceremony necessary–Bona fide intention accompanied by unequivocal conduct sufficient. Madras Hindu (Bigamy Prevention and Divorce) Act 6 of 1949- Act applicable only to those domiciled in Madras. Indian Evidence Act 1 of 1872, s. 112–Presumption as to legitimacy of child. =One Perumal Nadar, a Hindu, married Annapazham, daughter of an Indian Christian, on November 29, 1950 at Kannimadam in the State of Travancore-Cochin according to Hindu rites. Of the two children born of the marriage one died. The younger child, a son born in 1958, acting through his mother, the afoResaid Annapazham, as his guardian, filed an action in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, for separate possession of a half share in the properties of the joint family held by his father Perumal. The ‘suit was defended by Perumal. The trial court decreed the suit and the High Court confirmed the decree. In appeal to this Court by certificate Perumal, the appellant, contended : (i) that Annapazham was an Indian Christian and a marriage between a Hindu and an Indian Christian must be regarded as void; (ii) that the marriage was invalid because the appellant was already married .before he married Annapazham and bigamous marriages were prohibited by Madras Act 6 of 1949; (iii) that the appellant and Annapazham were living apart for a long time before the birth of the plaintiff and on that account the plaintiff could not be regarded as a legitimate child of the appellant. HELD : (i) The question whether marriage between a Hindu male and a Christian female is valid or not did not arise for consideration in the present case because the finding of the Courts below that Annapazham was converted to Hinduism before her marriage with Perumal was amply supported by evidence. [52 D-E] A person may be a Hindu by birth or conversion. A mere theoretical allegiance to the Hindu faith by a person born in another faith does not convert him into a Hindu, nor is a bare declaration that he is a Hindu sufficient to convert him to Hinduism. But a bona,fide intention to be converted to the Hindu faith, accompanied by conduct unequivocally expressing that intention may be sufficient evidence of conversion. No formal ceremony of purification or expiration is necessary to effectuate conversion. [52 E-F] Muthusami Mudaliar v. Musilamani alias Subramania Mudaliar I.L.R. 33 Mad. 342 and Goona Durgaprasada Rao v. Goona Sudarasanaswami, I.L.R. (1940) Mad. 653, referred to. The evidence in the present case established that the parents of Annapazham arranged the marriage. The marriage was performed 50 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies in the presence of relatives who were invited to attend : customary ceremonies peculiar to a marriage between Hindus were performed : no objection was raised to the marriage and after the marriage Annapazham was accepted by the local Hindu Nadar community as belonging to the Hindu faith; and the plaintiff was also treated as a Hindu. On the evidence there could be no doubt that Annapazham bona fide intended to contract marriage with Perumal. Absence of specific expiatory or purificatory ceremonies would not be sufficient to hold that she was not converted to Hinduism before the marriage ceremony was performed. The fact that the appellant chose to go through the marriage ceremony according to Hindu rites with Annapazham in the presence of a large number of persons clearly indicated that he accepted that Annapazham was converted to Hinduism before the marriage ceremony was performed. [53 C-E] (ii) On the facts and pleadings the High Court was right in holding that it was not proved that the appellant was domiciled in the State of Madras at the date of his marriage with Annapazham. He could not therefore rely upon the provisions of the Madras Hindu (Bigamy Prevention and Divorce) Act 6 of 1949. [54 F] (iii) There was a concurrent finding by the courts below that there was no evidence to establish that the appellant living in the same village as Annapazham had no access to her during the time when the plaintiff could have been begotten. Therefore, in view of s. 112 of the Indian Evidence Act it could not be held that the plaintiff was an illegitimate child. [55 A-B] Chilukuri Venkateswarlu v. Chilukuri Venkatanarayana, [1954] S.C.R. 425, Karapaya v. Mayandi, I.L.R. 12 Rang. 243 (P.C) and Ammathayee v. Kumaresain, [1967] 1 S.C.R. 363, applied. =1971 AIR 2352, 1971( 1 )SCR 49, , ,

PETITIONER: PERUMAL NADAR (DEAD) BY L.R.S. Vs. RESPONDENT: PONNUSWAMI DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/03/1970 BENCH: SHAH, J.C. BENCH: SHAH, J.C. HEGDE, K.S. GROVER, A.N. CITATION: 1971 AIR 2352 1971 SCR (1) 49 ACT: Hindu Law–Marriage between Hindu and former Christian–Proof of conversion to Hinduism–No formal purification ceremony necessary–Bona fide intention accompanied by unequivocal conduct sufficient. Madras … Continue reading

Hindu Succession Act, 1956: s.6, Explanation 1-Devolution of interest in coparcenary property-Father and his adopted son constituting Mitakshara coparcenary-Father having two daughters also-On the death of father, daughters claiming 2/3 share in property-Held, in view of s.6 and Explanation 1 thereto, notional partition of the suit properties between father and his adopted son has to be assumed immediately before the death of the father and that being so his undivided interest in suit property, which was half, devolved on his death upon his three children, i.e. the adopted son and the two daughters in equal proportion-Adopted son would get half of the entire property which right he acquired on the date of adoption and one third of the remaining half which devolved upon him by succession-Thus, each of the two daughters was entitled to one-sixth share in the property and the remaining properties would go to the adopted son-Hindu Law-Mitakshara coparcenary-Devolution of interest-Interpretation of statutes-Statutory fiction-Interpretation of. State of Bombay v. Pandurang Vinayak Chaphalkar & Ors., [1953] 4 SCR 773 and Gurupad Khandappa Magdum v. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum, AIR (1978) SC 1239, relied on. East End Dwelling Co. Ltd. v. Finsbury Borough Council, (1952) Appeal Cases 109, referred to. Mulla, Principles on Hindu Law, referred to. =Sushil Kumar Jain, Puneet Jain, Sarad Singhania, Rani Masheshwari and Pratibha Jain for the Appellants. Aruneshwar Gupta, Gen. Naveen Kumar Singh, Mukul Sood, Kumar Kartikay, Shiva Pujan Singh, Ved Pal Shastri and Siddharth Singh for the Respondents.

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4171 of 2006 PETITIONER: Anar Devi and Ors RESPONDENT: Parmeshwari Devi and Ors DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/09/2006 BENCH: B.N. AGRAWAL & P.P. NAOLEKAR JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT O R D E R (ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) NO. 15677 OF 2004) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4172 OF 2006 (ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) … Continue reading

Hindu Law–Widow–Surrender–Release in favour of daugh- ter and son-in-law–Validity–Suit by reversioner–Right to mesne profits. = Where a Hindu widow who had inherited her husband’s estate executed a deed, described as a deed of release, in favour of her daughter who was the next reversioner and the daughter’s husband jointly: Held, that though under the Hindu Law it is open to a widow to surrender the estate to the next reversioner even though the latter is a female heir, a widow cannot validly surrender in favour of the next female heir and a stranger jointly. Such a transaction cannot be treated as a surren- der in favour of the female heir and a transfer by the latter to the stranger, and is not binding upon the ultimate reversioners. Jagrani v. Gaya (A.I.R. 1933 All. 8561 approved. Nobo Kishore v. Harinath (I.L.R. 10 Cal. 1102) commented upon. Vytla Sitanna v. Marivada (L R. 61 I.A. 200), Rangasa- mi Goundan v. Nachiappa Goundan (41 I.A. 72) and Debi Prosad v. Gola Bhagat (I.L.R. 40 Cal. 721) referred to. In a suit by the reversioner to set aside an alienation made by a Hindu widow mesne profits can be awarded to the reversioner from the date of the widow’s death even though such an alienation is not void. Even in cases where the decree for possession in favour of the reversioner is conditional on his depositing the amount which has been found to have been used for the bene- fit of the estate, mesne profits can be awarded to the reversioner if he is ordered to pay interest on the amount payable to the alienee. Bhagwat Dayal v. Debi Dayal (L.R. 35 I.A. 48)and Satgur Prasad v. Harinarain Singh (L.R. 59 I.A. 147) referred to. Banwarilal v. Mahesh (I.L.R. 41 All. 63) distinguished.


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.


Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (No. 30 of 1956): ss. 2, 14- Hindu widow’s estate-Alienation by gift to female reversioner prior to 1956-Whether alienee could become absolute owner-`Limited owner’-Meaning of: s. 4-Hindu Law- Applicability of. Hindu Law: Gift of widow’s estate without legal necessity-Reversioner can claim possession within 12 years of widow’s death-Whether alienee could claim adverse possession against reversioners during life time of widow. Transfer of property Act, 1898: S. 41-Estoppel-Whether applicable against reversioners in case of gift of widow’s estate in favour of one of reversioners. Statutory Interpretation: Section-Ascertainment of meaning-Should be read in its entirety-Marginal note should not be resorted to when language is plain and simple.

PETITIONER: KALAWATIBAI Vs. RESPONDENT: SOIRYABAI AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT01/05/1991 BENCH: SAHAI, R.M. (J) BENCH: SAHAI, R.M. (J) THOMMEN, T.K. (J) CITATION: 1991 AIR 1581 1991 SCR (2) 599 1991 SCC (3) 410 JT 1991 (2) 385 1991 SCALE (1)852 ACT: Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (No. 30 of 1956): ss. 2, 14- Hindu widow’s estate-Alienation … 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

  • 2,850,421 hits



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

Join 1,901 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com