Advanced Search Results

Chellamma Kamalamma and ors. Vs. Narayana Pillai Prabhakaran Nair

Court : Kerala

Subject : Family

Acts : Marumakkathayam Law; Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Sections 2, 3(1), 4(1), 8, 10, 15, 17 and 30; Travancore Nair Act, 1100K - Sections 44; Constitution of India - Article 254 and 254(1); Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 - Sections 3, 7, 7(1) and 7(2); Hindu Law

Reported in : AIR1993Ker146

is no law of succession, because one ( Section 17) is treated as inoperative and the other (the succession law in Travancore Nair Act) has got repealed. That is why we say, the fiction should not be used

Sherin Raj.S., vs Kerala State Road Trasnport Corporation,

Court : Kerala

certificate. The exclusion of the first petitioner brother from Ext.P7 certificate appears to be because, as per the succession laws applicable to the petitioners, only the second petitioner would be the legal heir of late Seron Raj. … The exclusion of the first petitioner brother from Ext.P7 certificate appears to be because, as per the succession laws applicable to the petitioners, only the second petitioner would be the legal heir of late Seron Raj. It

Pritam Singh Vs. Assistant Controller of Estate Duty

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Sections 4; Estate Duty Act, 1953 - Sections 7, 6, 30, 39 and 59; Income Tax Act, 1922 - Sections 34(1) and 147; Punjab Laws Act, 1972 - Sections 5; Income Tax Act, 1961

Reported in : [1976]103ITR661(P& H)

a Division Bench of this court, it was pointed out that by the mere enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act, it could not be held that the custom had been abrogated and the agriculturists started being governed … be held that the custom had been abrogated and the agriculturists started being governed by the Mitakshara Hindu law, etc. The petitioner was directed to file account of all property assessable to estate duty as the property

Edulji Framroj Dinshaw Vs. Sir Gawasji Jehangir

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Family

Reported in : (1955)57BOMLR763

as not to transgress the rule against perpetuities, i.e. the rule contained in Section 114 of the Indian Succession Act. If the donees exercise the power contrary to that direction, the exercise of that power would be … creation of the power.14. It is pertinent to note that the rule against perpetuities in England before the Law of Property Act of 1925 comprised two principal rules which were really two branches of the rule relating

Kesharbai Jagannath Gujar Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : FamilyProperty

Acts : Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Sections 4, 4(1), 14(1) and 14(2); Hindu Law; Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 - Sections 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16; Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 - Sections 45(2); Hindu Women's Right to Property Act; Shastric Hindu Law

Reported in : AIR1981Bom115; (1981)83BOMLR159; 1981MhLJ1

the petition relates to the correct meaning and Interpretation of the provisions of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. Since the facts were undisputed and that was the only question involved, the petition itself has been … the decision in Yamunabai's case AIR 1960 Bom 463 as confirmed by the Supreme Court. Apparently, therefore, the law was settled and the question raised, had to be answered in the negative. However, a Division Bench of

Bai Asha Vs. Bai Biban

Court : Mumbai

Subject : PropertyFamily

Reported in : (1957)59BOMLR470

Vyas, J.1. This appeal raises a point as to the law which is applicable, in matters of succession and inheritance, to the Sunni Bohras of the territory which was formerly known as the Baroda State. Are

Haji Oosman Haji Ismail Vs. Haroon Salleh Mahomed

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Family

Reported in : AIR1923Bom148; (1922)24BOMLR978

and bad left only two sons as his heirs according to the rules of Hindu law as to succession applicable to Cutchi Memons; and, as regards the second objection, they contended that according to the law applicable

Smt. Ningamma and ors. Vs. Smt. Sakamma and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Civil

Acts : Succession Act, 1925 - Sections 373

Reported in : AIR2001Kant339; ILR2001KAR2586; 2002(3)KarLJ248

respondents 1 to 3 (they were the petitioners before the City Civil Judge) were entitled to for a succession certificate to an extent of 3/4th of the total amounts available in the hands of the Bangalore City … on the pleadings and therefore, according to him, the City Civil Court had entered into an error in law in not following the said course. He had also pointed out that the City Civil Court had treated

Ranbir Karam Singh Vs. Jogindra Chandra Bhattacharji and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Family

Reported in : AIR1940All134

a Christian, he and his brothers are the legal heirs in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Succession Act. Defendant 1, who is a minor under the guardianship of one Dr. Miss C.M. John, contested the … estate in the hands of the Administrator-General and Official Trustee, United Provinces, Allahabad, which is divisible according to law only amongst the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4 who are her legal heirs.2. The Court below has

His Highness Maharaja Pratap Singh Vs. Her Highness Maharani Sarojini ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Family

Acts : Hindu Law; Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Sections 5; Constitution of India - Article 372

Reported in : 1994(1)BLJR48; 1993(3)SCALE394; 1994Supp(1)SCC734; [1993]Supp1SCR607

was one of the three Phulkian States. The other two were Patiala and Jind. 3.In the matter of succession to Chiefship, the rule of primogeniture was followed by the Phulkian families. This rule was also followed in … as distinct from State properties and succession to his personal properties were governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. (3)The inclusion of the suit property in the inventory furnished by Pratap Singh, as his private property, would