Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: hindu succession amendment act 2005 section 4 omission of section 23 Page 90 of about 83,762 results (0.795 seconds)

Kolandayammal Vs. Sinnavelappa Goundan and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1952Mad27; (1951)2MLJ438

..... to ascertain the truenature of the tax. the case in 'in re hinduwomen's rights to property act, 1937; 54 m.l.w.22 decides that the hindu women's rights toproperty act, 1937, and the hindu women's rightsto property (amendment) act, 1938, do not operateto regulate succession to agricultural land in thegovernor's provinces, but they operate to regulatedevolution by survivorship of property other thanagricultural ..... land. entry no. 21 of list ii of theconstitution act provides for devolution of agricultural land. wills, intestacy and .....

The Madras State Bhoodan Yagna Board, Madurai Vs. Subramania Athithan ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1973Mad277; (1973)1MLJ176

..... the gifts made by the first defendant would be valid at least to the extent of his share in the joint family properties. his submission is that under the hindu succession act, the first defendant is entitled to make a will of his property and if, on the death of the first defendant, such a will can take effect, there ..... is no reason for not applying the same principles to a case of gift by the first defendant. it is true that section 30 of the hindu succession act confers power upon a member of a joint family to make a will in respect of his interest in the joint family property. but that principle cannot be ..... contemplated by the third proviso to section 11 of the madras bhoodan yagna (amendment) act, 1964 (madras act xxxvi of 1964), which states that notwithstanding anything contained in section 11or sub-section(5) of section17 of the principal act, as in force immediately before the commencement of that act (act xxxvi of 1964) the right, title and interest of the donor in .....

Angappa Goundan Vs. Kuppammal

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1970)1MLJ170

..... (1) (b) is the relevant provision of law, that perhaps, by oversight, there has been no legislative amendment of section 214 making an exception in the case of a claim under section 8 of the hindu succession act (central act xxx of 1955). the matter is not bare of authority. it came up, squarely in the form that it ..... that persons claiming under section 8 of the hindu succession act, need not produce a succession certificate when seeking to recover a debt due in the deceased person, or to execute a decree already obtained by such person, then, either section 214 should be suitably amended, or section 8 should be invested with a overriding or ..... 1966 mys. 198. the learned judge held that the party could not proceed without the production of a succession certificate, and that there was no conflict between section 214 of the indian succession act, and section 8 of the hindu succession act, since both could simultaneously apply or be in force.3. of course, if the legislative intent was .....

State of Tamil Nadu Vs. P. Ganesa Odyar

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 1997(3)CTC433; [1997]227ITR544(Mad)

..... that family.' (p. 371)it was further held : '(iii) it would be difficult to hold today that property which devolved on a hindu under section 8 of the hindu succession act would be hindu undivided family property in his hands vis-a-vis his own son; that would amount to creating two classes among the heirs mentioned in class i ..... holder of the joint property for the time being.' (p. 293) 7. similarly, while considering the provisions of sections 4(1), 8, 19. sch. class i of the hindu succession act, 1956, the supreme court in the case of cwt v. chander sen : [1986]161itr370(sc) held as under : 'held, affirming the decision of the high court, ..... act reiterates that the act is, inter alia, to 'amend' the law. with that back ground, the express language which excluded son's son but included son of a predeceased son cannot be ignored.' (p. 371) 8. so also in the case of cit v. p. l. karuppan chettiar : [1992]197itr646(sc) , the supreme court, while considering section 8 of the hindu succession act .....

K. Muthuramakrishna Chettiar (Alias) K.M.R. Krishna Chettiar Vs. K.V. ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1980)2MLJ212

..... bequeathed 1/3rd rights in the suit mortgage in favour of his wife and the remaining 2/3rd rights in the suit mortgage will devolve under section 8 of the hindu succession act on his two sons, the plaintiffs herein and the wife and daughter of the deceased mortgagee, and since they have not been impleaded, the suit is bad for non ..... the suit proceeded for trial only on one issue viz., 'whether the claim for interest is excessive in view of the provisions of the usurious loans act of 1918 as amended by the usurious loans (madras amendment) act, 1936.' the other issues were given up by the defendant by making an endorsement to that effect in the plaint. the trial court held that ..... per annum is payable. we do not see that there is any case for this court, exercising its powers under section 3(1) of the madras usurious loans act (as amended by act no. viii of 1977) to reduce the rate of interest from what has been provided in the mortgage bond. we hold that the interest charged and levied is .....

insane Nil Govinda Misra, Represented by Guardian Wife Khanta Mayi Deb ...

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1944Cal421

..... . duraiawami ('31) 18 a.i.r. 1931 mad. 659, till the provincial legislatures legislate on the lines of act 18 of 1937 and the amending act of 1938, there would arise anomalies and difficulties in the matter of succession but the adoption of the wider import for the term 'agriculture' would reduce the anomalies to a great extent, and ..... lands only. the physical character of the land included in the tenure must, in our judgment, determine the rule of succession whether succession would be in ac cordance with that act or according to the rules of hindu law, as long as the pro vincial legislature does not pass the law regulating devolution of 'agricultural land' held by ..... channels. as all the immovable properties were the joint ancestral properties of the plaintiff's husband and his coparceners, or accretions thereto, they would pass under the hindu law to the plaintiff's husband's surviving brother and to his brother's sons by survivorship. the plaintiff can claim a share therein only by the .....

Sankar Prasad Khan and ors. Vs. Smt. Ushabala Dasi and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1978Cal525,82CWN880

..... the guardianship of defendant no. 1 came to an end for all intents and purposes. he also stated that with the enactment of hindu succession act, 1956, the provisions of the hindu widow's remarriage act. 1856 were impliedly repealed. against that decision the present appeal has been filed. 6. the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the ..... through defendant no. 1 and that was her mere possession without any title. it is therefore held that the provisions of section 14(1) of the hindu succession act did not confer any absolute estate in the disputed land in her favour. 12. then the most important question arises what will be the effect of district ..... wrongful possession of the disputed property. the suit was filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession and mesne profits and also for injunction. subsequently by amending the plaint the prayer for partition was added. 2. defendant no. 1 filed a written statement denying the plaintiffs allegations. he alleged that he still continued .....

Padmini. Vs. Easwari and ors.

Court : Chennai

..... first schedule properties belonged to deceased gangammal. further pending suit, one of the daughters of gangammal viz. rajammal died. as per section 15(2)(1)(a) of the hindu succession act, 1956, on the death of rajammal, it devloves upon her father's heirs viz. two sons (raman and lakshmanan) and the plaintiff, who is daughter of deceased valliyammal ..... said properties of elumalai naicker and gangammal in the name of first defendant viz. lakshmanan and his deceased brother raman. under the provisions of section 15 of the hindu succession act, 1956, the plaintiff has got one fourth share and first and sixth defendants have got one fourth share each and the defendants 2 to 5 jointly have ..... defendant died issueless and also 1st defendant, one of the sons of elumalai, also died and defendants 8 to 15 are his legal heirs and hence the plaintiff amended the plaint praying for 1/3 share in the suit properties.5. before the trial court,, 7th defendant remained exparte and d1 and d6 were died and .....

Sugeeta Chhabra Vs. Harish Nayar

Court : Delhi

..... 4. mr. r.p. sharma, learned counsel for the defendant stated that the proposed amendment is bona fide and is sought to be incorporated in the written statement for giving effect to section 6 of the hindu succession act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the act). he submitted that the defendant had pleaded in paras 1 to 12 of the written ..... an absolute property of the parents of the parties and not if it was purchased by shri r.g. nayar as a karta of a hindu undivided family, as claimed in the proposed amendments.27. in the teeth of the aforesaid categorical stand taken by the defendant in his written statement, it does not lie in his mouth ..... up an entirely different and mutually incompatible defence.28. further, the contention of the counsel for the defendant that the amendments sought to be incorporated are only a consequence of the interpretation of section 6 of the act, based on an opinion dated 21.04.2012 received by the defendant from his chartered accountant does not inspire the .....

Maya Devi and anr. Vs. Jai Singh Tomar and anr.

Court : Delhi

..... court in holding that the suit of the plaintiffs/appellants is barred by limitation.11. the second submission of the learned counsel is since the amendment to section 6 of the hindu succession act dealing with coparcenery property was brought into operation w.e.f. 9.9.2005, therefore, the period of limitation is to be reckoned ..... about the same through newspaper in the last week of april, 2008. the case of the appellants is since section 6 of the hindu succession act, 1956 pertaining to coparcenery property has been amended with effect from 09.9.2005, therefore, suit property deserves to be partitioned so as to enable the appellants to get a share ..... not by survivorship but by inheritance. since in the instant case, chajju singh has admittedly died before the amendment to section 6 of the hindu succession act was brought into operation therefore, the benefit of section 6, as amended, would not be available to the appellants to seek a right in the coparcenery property. if this is permitted .....