Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: hindu succession amendment act 2005 section 4 omission of section 23 Page 100 of about 83,762 results (1.170 seconds)

Soundarammal Vs. Sundara Mahalinga, Nadar

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1980Mad294; (1980)2MLJ121

..... to her, like the enabling provision made for a female relative to get a share in coparcenary property under s. 6 of the hindu succession act. it is vided therein that when a hindu dies having a right in coparcenary e , it will be deemed that a partition ad taken place in respect of his share immediately ..... appellate court is hereby set aside.29. counsel for the respondent-husband contended before me that the provisions relating to divorce in hindu marriage act 1955, had radically changed by several amending acts and the liberalisation made for making divorce easy has to be understood and approached by courts which should reorient its hitherto approach and ..... a wrongdoer, the foundation of which is based on his- own wrongs. in attempting to make a harmonious construction of the sections in the amended act, merely because the subsequent amendments are claimed to usher in liberalisation on the aspect of divorce, the court cannot bring about an interpretation which would give a helping hand to .....

Hazarimall Chandukchand and anr. Vs. N.R. Vedachala Chettiar and anr.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 138Ind.Cas.74

..... religious and charitable trusts, except those which partake of the character of personal or communal rights, should be litigated only under the provisions of section 92(1). an amendment of act xx of 1863 may be necessary to give full effect to this suggestion.4. then phillips, j., makes similar observations. it is suggested that it was in consequence ..... court and it is conceded here by the learned counsel for the appellant that there can be no bar of limitation even in the event of the appellant's success here, to a suit claiming exactly the same reliefs being filed in the district court at chingleput. under these circumstances, it is very difficult to see what ..... evidence that the alienation was the result of mismanagement by that trustee, the provisions of section 73 madras hindu religious endowments act, are at once attracted. i can see no warrant for any such contention. to so contend is to very widely amend the words in sub-section (2) of that section. if it had been intended to deprive .....

Durgi Poojarthy, and ors. Vs. Koraga Poojary S/O Chikkamma, and ors

Court : Karnataka

..... parties to the suit and it is also not in dispute that both plaintiffs and defendants are contending that they are governed by the amended provisions of the madras aliya santhana law and not hindu succession act. if it is so, very granting of decree by the court below is not proper. accordingly, we answer all the three points. ..... has committed a serious error in considering the case of the parties as if they are bound by provisions of hindu succession act of 1956 forgetting the fact that they are governed by the madras aliya santana act of 1949 and amendment brought therein subsequently. according to him, share allotted to the plaintiffs is not based on their entitlement. in the ..... 7. in view of our finding passing of a decree by the court below based on the hindu succession act is erroneous and liable to be set aside. as the children of krishni poojarthi are not arrayed as parties, they are to be impleaded as additional defendants. .....

Sulochana Vs. Prakash

Court : Chennai

..... the respondent/defendant is defeated, naturally the petitioner/plaintiff shall be the person entitled to succeed to her property by virtue of section 15(2)(b) of the hindu succession act, 1956.10. admittedly, the petitioner, while deposing as p.w.1, made an admission that there was a partition in which the suit property was allotted ..... and ramaiah naidu was legally invalid and having failed to dispute the execution of the will propounded by the respondent/defendant, came forward with the petition for amendment to incorporate a prayer for partition as an alternative relief only as an attempted vexation and to protract the case, that too, even after an admission ..... shall be true, that would bind only the half share of rajamani ammal and that hence, it had become necessary for the revision petitioner/plaintiff to seek amendment of the plaint to include an alternative prayer for partition and separate possession of half share allegedly belonging to the petitioner/plaintiff.7. on the other hand .....

Thabagouda and Others Vs. Satteppa

Court : Karnataka Dharwad

..... would have been entitled to. consequently, a wife has no share, right title or interest in the hindu undivided family in which her husband is a co-parcener with his brothers, father or sons and after the amendment of section 6 of the hindu -succession act 2005 with his sisters and daughters also. the wife, may be a member of a joint ..... hindu family, but by virtue of being a member in the joint hindu family she cannot get any share, right, title or interest in the ..... joint hindu family property which that family owns. a wife cannot demand for partition .....

Raj Kumar Bhatia Vs. Subhash Chander Bhatia

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... belated attempt was made thirteen years later in 2016 to amend the written statement to introduce an averment on the existence of coparcenary / hindu undivided property. on merits, the high court held that it is a settled principle that after the enactment of the hindu succession act 1956, property which devolves on an individual from a paternal ..... written statement, the appellant has set up an oral family arrangement, thus : 12 that acting upon the oral family arrangement, an amount of rs. 6, 00, 000/- was taken out of the common fund of the joint hindu undivided family. the said amount has been handed over to dr r c bhatia and shri ..... and order is unsustainable. we accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the high court. the order passed by the trial court allowing the amendment of the written statement is accordingly affirmed. 14 there shall in the circumstances be no order as to costs. [dipak misra]. ..................................................cji [a. m. khanwilkar .....

Thabagouda Satteppa Umarani Vs. Satteppa S/O. Thabagouda Umarani

Court : Karnataka Dharwad

..... have been entitled to. consequently, a 10 wife has no share, right title or interest in the hindu undivided family in which her husband is a co-parcener with his brothers, father or sons and after the amendment of section 6 of the hindu succession act 2005 with his sisters and daughters also. the wife, may be a member of a joint ..... hindu family, but by virtue of being a member in the joint hindu family she cannot get any share, right, title or interest in the ..... joint hindu family property which that family owns. a wife cannot demand for partition unlike .....

Kalpana & Anr. Vs.maya Devi Sharma & Anr.

Court : Delhi

..... to her on account of her alleged right of maintenance. for this reason also, the appellants/defendants could not have succeeded on a case under section 14 of the hindu succession act.11. i may note that after conclusion of the final arguments in the suit and fixing the suit for final orders and clarifications on 29.9.2012, the ..... property by the appellants/defendants was in the year 1995. appellant no.1/defendant no.1 also claims right in the suit property as per section 14 of the hindu succession act, 1956.7. after pleadings were complete in both the suits, the following issues were framed:-"as per the pleading following issues were framed in the first suit 5. ..... estate of the father/plaintiff no.1 and for this purpose the appellants/defendants should have after the death of the father/plaintiff no.1 moved an application to amend the written statement for dismissing the suit for possession on the ground that the deceased father/plaintiff no.1 died without the will and did not leave behind .....

Mukul Kataria (Minor) & Anr vs.ram Bhool & Anr

Court : Delhi

..... in the plaint had admitted that shiv ram was the absolute owner of the properties and died in 1996/1998 i.e. after the coming into force of the hindu succession act, 1956, on the demise of shiv ram, the properties would be inherited by his class-i heirs namely his son defendant no.1 rambhool and his daughters only ..... by their mother smt. pinki through whom they have filed this suit, in the suit filed by defendant no.1 for recovery of possession, are now seeking amendment. the amendment claiming shiv ram to have constituted an huf and having thrown both the properties in the said huf are inconsistent with the admission already made by the plaintiffs, ..... , further hearing was adjourned. the plaintiffs, having realized the position in law as detailed in the order dated 25th january, 2019, have filed ia no.3267/2019 for amendment of the plaint. the defendants, inspite of opportunity have not filed reply to the said application also.4. the plaintiffs instituted this suit pleading: 4. that late sh. .....

Kadappa S/o Girimallappa Madagouda Since Deceased By His Lrs Malagouda ...

Court : Karnataka Dharwad

..... an alienation of the property made prior to 20.12.2004, since they are saved by the proviso to sub-section (1) of the section 6 of the hindu succession act, 1956 as amended. any dispossession or alienation made prior to 20.12.2004 cannot be called into question even after judgement of the hon ble apex court in vineeta sharma case (supra ..... acre 25 guntas. 16.13. defendant no.1 has sold 3 acres 32 guntas in the year 1982 by way of a registered sale deed prior to the amendment of section 6 of the hindu succession act, 1956 as amended in the year 2005 coming into force, the said transaction is thus saved by proviso to sub- section (1) of section 6 of the ..... case (supra) would have to be applied taking into consideration the statutory requirements of section 6 of the hindu succession act. 16.22. in the present case the sale of 3 acres 33 guntas having occurred by a registered sale deed prior to amendment coming into force, a notional partition is to be effected as on the date of the sale deed to .....