Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: hindu succession amendment act 2005 section 4 omission of section 23 Page 1 of about 83,762 results (0.643 seconds)

Narayanan Vs. Meenakshi

Court : Kerala

Reported in : AIR2006Ker143; 2006(1)KLT210

..... additional appellant, the widow of the deceased, is not entitled to resist the suit for partition, claiming the benefit under section 23 of the hindu succession act.15. the hindu succession amendment act, 2005, act 39 of 2005, was enacted on the basis of the 174th report of the law commission. the representations made by the various women's ..... taken note of and applied in pending litigations. therefore, i am of the view that by the omission of section 23 of the hindu succession act, 1956 as per the hindu succession amendment act, 2005, the right of the male heir to claim the benefit of section 23 would get defeated even in pending litigations.for the aforesaid ..... get defeated the moment his personal right ceases. such personal right of a male heir is taken away by the omission of section 23 of the hindu succession act, 1956, by the hindu succession amendment act, 2005. the effect of such omission would be retroactive.16. in lekh raj v. muni lal and ors. : [2001]1scr864 , the supreme .....

Santhosh Kumar Vs. Baby and ors.

Court : Kerala

Reported in : AIR2007Ker214; 2007(2)KLJ241

..... male heir would get defeated the moment his personal right ceases. such personal right of a male heir is taken away by the omission of section 23 of the hindu succession act, 1956, by the hindu succession amendment act, 2005. the effect of such omission would be retroactive.in view of the decision in narayana v. meenakshi : air2006ker143 the question of the appellant that the plaintiff is ..... separated from her husband or is a widow.section 23 was omitted by the hindu succession amendment act of 2005 (act 39 of 2005). the question whether the deletion of section 23 of the hindu succession act is retroactive, was considered in narayanan v. meenakshi : air2006ker143 and it was held as follows:15. the hindu succession amendment act, 2005, act 39 of 2005, was enacted on the basis of the 174th report of .....

Prabhudayal (Dead) Through His L.Rs. Vs. Smt. Ramsiya and anr.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : AIR2009MP52; 2009(1)MPHT139

..... point only as indicated hereinabove.4. in this manner for a limited purpose only that what is the impact of section 6 of the act as amended by hindu succession (amendment) act, 2005 (for brevity 'the amended act of 2005') on the dwelling houses of udaipura and rehma is to be taken into consideration. the appeal on all other points has ..... already been decided on 8-1-2008.5. the contention of shri n.k. patel, learned senior counsel is that section 23 of the act which ..... m.c.c. no. 1339/2007) which was filed by plaintiff smt. ramsiya was also allowed since the amended provision of section 6 of hindu succession act, 1956 (in short the 'act') vis-a-vis to section 23 of the act was not taken into consideration and the said review application of plaintiff-ramsiya was also allowed and this first .....

Sugalabai Vs. Gundappa A. Maradi and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR2007KAR4790; 2008(2)KarLJ406

..... amendment act, 1990 coming into force or afterwards, in view of the amendment affected to the hindu succession act, 1956, (for short 'the principal act') by the state of karnataka by the hindu succession (karnataka amendment) act, 1990 (karnataka act no. 23/1994), with effect from 30th july 1994 and the subsequent amendment brought to the principal act by the central government by the hindu succession (amendment) act ..... cases on hand as section 6-a of the karnataka hindu succession (amendment) act (karnataka act no. 23/94) was not the subject matter of interpretation before the apex court in the aforesaid decisions. as far as commencement of hindu succession act (amendment act, 2005) is concerned, this court has already discussed ..... as a coparcener is concerned, two important points arise for consideration at this juncture, and they are:(1) whether the hindu succession (amendment) act, 2005 enacted by the parliament providing for the daughter of a coparcener to be a coparcener by birth in her .....

Sri. Ravindranath Mane Vs. Smt. Meera Satyananda Nikam

Court : Karnataka

..... to section 23 as it stood prior to 09.09.2005; 23. special provision respecting dwelling houses [omitted by the hindu succession (amendment) act, 2005 (39 of 2005), section 4 (w.e.f. 9.9.2005)]. - where a hindu intestate has left surviving him or her both male and female heirs specified in class i of the schedule and his or ..... or has been deserted by or has separated from her husband or is a widow. section 23 is omitted by act no.39 of 2005 with effect from 09.09.2005. the law on the point whether the hindu succession (amendment) act, 2005 is prospective or retrospective in nature is already answered by the hon ble supreme court in the case ..... of g.sekar vs. geetha, wherein it was held as under; 30. neither the 1956 act nor the 2005 act seeks to reopen vesting of a right where succession had already been taken place. the .....

Lokamani and Others Vs. Mahadevamma and Others

Court : Karnataka

..... in the case of jethanand betab vs the state of delhi [air 1960 sc 89]. 32. the repealing and amending act, 2015 which repeals the hindu succession (amendment) act, 2005 in whole, therefore, does not wipe out the amendment to section 6 from the hindu succession act. the existence of the hindu succession (amendment) act, 2005 since became superfluous and did not serve any purpose and might lead to confusion, the parliament in its ..... proposed to remove the discrimination as contained in section 6 of the hindu succession act, 1956 by giving equal rights to daughters of a coparcener in the hindu mitakshara co-parcenary property, by enacting the hindu succession (amendment) act, 2005. 18. section 6 under the hindu succession (amendment) act, 2005 reads as under: 3. for section 6 of the principal act, the following section shall be substituted, namely 6. devolution of interest in .....

Smt Lokamani Vs. Smt Mahadevamma

Court : Karnataka

..... supreme court in the case of jethanand betab vs the state of delhi [air1960sc89. 30 32. the repealing and amending act, 2015 which repeals the hindu succession act (amendment) act, 2005 in whole, therefore, does not wipe out the amendment to section 6 from the hindu succession act. the existence of the hindu succession (amendment) act, 2005 since became superfluous and did not serve any purpose and might lead to confusion, the parliament in its ..... proposed to remove the discrimination as contained in section 6 of the hindu succession act, 1956 by giving equal rights to daughters of a coparcener in the hindu mitakshara co-parcenary property, by enacting the hindu succession (amendment) act, 2005.18. section 6 under the hindu succession (amendment) act, 2005 reads as under : 3. for section 6 of the principal act, the following section shall be substituted, namely - 15 6. devolution of interest .....

Prathipati Jogayyamma Vs. 1. Vobhilineni Veera Venkata Satyanaraya

Court : Andhra Pradesh

..... in occupation of members of joint family for their residence jointly and that therefore section 23 of the hindu succession act, 1956 (in short, the 1956 act) is not applicable to the said property. it is further contended that during pendency of this second appeal, the hindu succession (amendment) act, 2005 (in short, the 2005 act) came into force and section 4 thereof omitted section 23 of the 1956 ..... act which is the principal act and that it resulted in taking away of restriction contained in section 23 of the 1956 act. 6. on the other hand, it is contended by the respondents .....

Rathnakar Rao Sindhe Vs. Smt. Leela Ashwath

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR2007(1)Kar587; 2007(2)KLJ285; 2007(1)KCCR746; 2007(2)AIRKarR143; AIR2007NOC941

..... to take out his share from the dwelling house, a female heir cannot claim partition against him. but section 23 of the act had been omitted during the pendency of the suit. it came to be omitted by the hindu succession (amendment) act, 2005 (no. 39/2005) with effect from 9.9.2005, hence, the restriction put on the right of a female heir ..... received more money than her share was not proved by any satisfactory evidence.4. the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that section 23 of the hindu succession act, 1956 ('the act' for short) was in force as on the date of filing of the suit and hence, the trial court has erred in law in decreeing the suit in ..... of enforcing the said restriction after it ceased to be in force does not arise at all. in my opinion, the effect of omission of section 23 of the act would apply to all proceedings whether original or appellate involving adjudication of the rights of the parties and pending as on 9.9.2005 or initiated after that date.6 .....

Burugupalli Seshara Vs. 1.Sirigina Ramalakshmi and Other

Court : Andhra Pradesh

..... of the counsel for the appellant18 the learned counsel for the appellant contended that subsequent to the decision in the suit, parliament had amended hindu succession act, 1956 by the hindu succession amendment act 39 of 2005 making daughters also coparceners and declaring them to be entitled to a share in the joint family properties; therefore the ..... considered by the supreme court in g.sekar (3 supra). the supreme court held that the omission of section 23 of the hindu succession act, 1956 by section 3 of the hindu succession amendment act, 2005 would no doubt have prospective operation. but in view of the nature of the said provision it could affect pending proceedings ..... had taken place immediately before his death, irrespective of whether he was entitled to claim partition or not. (4) after the commencement of the hindu succession (amendment) act, 2005, no court shall recognize any right to proceed against a son, grandson or great-grandson for the recovery of any debt due from his .....