Judgment Search Results Home Phrase:hindu succession act 1956 1956 section 6 Page:2
Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1972Ker198
... person succeeding to the interest of a member dying after the commencement of hindu succession act. i have to see how far the courts below are right in this approach to the question.3. section 6 of the hindu succession act 1956 reads as follows:'6. when a male hindu dies after the commencement of this act, having at the time of his death an interest in a mitakshara coparcenery ... is inapplicable to a case of possession by persons claiming to inherit a share of a hindu under section 6 or 7 of the hindu succession act, 1956. apparently reliance has been placed upon certain passages in mulla's hindu law for this view. in the case of an alienee from a hindu coparcener the position is apparently different. mulla at page 293 of his treatise on ... property his interest in the property shall devolve by survivorship upon the surviving members of the coparcenery and not in accordance with this act:-- provided that, if ... hindu law 13th edition observes in regard to this as follows:--'if the purchaser (from an alienating ...Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1995(2)BomCR293; (1995)97BOMLR897
... death of devram. devram was a coparcener with parshuram and baburao during his life time. devram died on 15th november, 1962. the hindu succession act, 1956 had already come into force with effect from 20th december, 1956.28. section 6 of the hindu succession act, 1956 was therefore, attracted on death of devram. devram's share in the ancestral properties is deemed to have been separated by national partition ... on death of devram in view of devram having left his widow. it is well settled that succession never remains in abeyance. succession to the estate of devram opened ... of devram and she was not the mother of deveram. devram having been born to parashuram from his first wife zavarbai. in view of the provisions contained in section 24 of the hindu succession act, the share of yamunabai in the estate to the extent of 1/3rd would not stand forfeited on her re-marriage. the defendant no. 2 was not divested ... no. 1 contended that the only remedy available to laxmibai was to seek apportionment in respect of the compensation amount by making the necessary application under section 18 or under section 30 of the land acquisition act no. 1 of 1894 .the defendant no. 1 also raised certain other issues in the written statement which do not appear to be germane ...Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2004(4)MhLj897
... father baba is null and void. plaintiff does not accrue any right to file suit of partition, or separate possession or a coparcenary property in view of proviso to section 6 of the hindu succession act, 1956. the plaintiff had not accrued any right over coparcenary property in view of the testamentary deed/will deed. therefore, the findings given by the appellate court in respect of ... . 1, 2 and 3 are substantial question of law.' three grounds, on which the second appeal is admitted, are as follows :- '(1) whether the interpretation of the proviso of section 6 of the hindu succession act, 1956, made by the learned judge is correct or not is the substantial question of law. (2) whether the suit of the plaintiff for partition is maintainable or not is ... relief in favour of daughter vatsalabai in the present suit. 14. so far as interpretation of proviso to section 6 of hindu succession act, 1956 is concerned, the section and proviso read as follows:- '6, devolution of interest in coparcenary property.- when a male hindu dies after the commencement of this act, having at the time of his death an interest in a mitakshara coparcenary property, his interest in the ...Tag this Judgment!
Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2007)3GLR2332
... daughter would not be entitled to succeed to anything. his submission is that before coming into force of hindu succession act, 1956, specially section 6 or section 8 of the said act, daughter was not entitled to any share in the property. his further submission is that the old, orthodox hindu law clearly provided that a daughter would only be entitled to maintenance and nothing more and in case ... widow, daughter, widow of the predeceased son and other females, who, otherwise, had no right in the property before coming into force of the hindu succession act. 10. section 6 of the hindu succession act provides that in case there is a joint hindu family property, the property would be succeeded by other co-parceners of the family and they would enjoy the joint possession over the same. clause ... , there would be a deemed partition and the property would devolved upon by succession and not by survivorship. section 6 would govern the field of succession after coming into force of hindu succession act and would not reopen the subject which already came to an end. 11. section 8 of the hindu succession act provides natural course of succession, it provides different heads and different class of the successors-cum-heirs. widow ...Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1964Bom263; (1964)66BOMLR351
... as the defendants had admitted it to be 1/10th, he decreed accordingly. the question that arises is not easy to answer. 2a. section 6 of the hindu succession act, 1956, is as follows: 'when a male hindu dies after the commencement of this act, having at the time of his death an interest in a mitakshara coparcenary property, his interest in the property shall devolve by survivorship ... patel, j. 1. the question in this case is one of interpretation of section 6 of that hindu succession act 1956. 2. one bhimgonda died leaving behind him, the plaintiff his widow, a son defendant no. 1, three daughters defendants, 2, 3 and 4 by his predeceased wife anjanabai. bhimgonda and ... upon ths surviving members of the coparcenary and not in accordance with this act. provided that, if the deceased had left him surviving a female ... his son formed a coparcenary and owned the suit property. jangonda defendant no. 5 is the father of anjanabai and defendants nos. 6 and 7 are two co-sharers of ...Tag this Judgment!
Court : Patna
Reported in : 2009(57)BLJR2517
... became separate property of each son?(ii) whether mitakshara joint family property having been partitioned by sons after the death of father, succession of the property of the son after his death will be governed by section 8 of hindu succession act, 1956 or section 6 thereof?13. on the aforesaid questions, learned counsel for the defendants-appellants argued that admittedly jaglal mistry got the suit properties in ... father madhir mistry in the year 1991, sons of jaglal mistry (defendant no. 1) not being class-i heirs of madhir mistry as per the schedule of hindu succession act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act' for the sake of brevity') cannot inherit the said properties.14. learned counsel for the appellants further argued that the properties being self acquired properties of madhir mistri ... joint family property and each of them had right to transfer his share in the land. he further submitted that the plaintiffs father left behind daughter also and hence section 6 of the act had no application. in this regard he relied upon three decisions of the hon'ble apex court in case of bhanwar singh v. puran reported in : air2008sc1490 ; (ii) in ... 'ble apex court in case of p. periasami v. p. periathambi reported in 1996 p.l.j.r. (sc) 67. he also referred to section 8 of the act, according to which the property of a male hindu dying inestate shall devolve according to the provisions of this chapter upon the heirs, being the relative specified in class-i of the schedule and ...Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 266ITR713(Bom)
... of parliament when it enacted that provision and which might also not be in the interest of such female heirs.'11. therefore, the concept of notional partition contemplated under section 6 of the hindu succession act, 1956, does not mean that a partition must necessarily follow or be assumed to have followed on the death of a coparcener. in this view of the legal position, the ... share she would have been notionally allotted to her, as stated in explanation 1 to section 6 of the hindu succession act, the apex court in the case of state of maharashtra v. narayan rao sham rao deshmukh : 163itr31(sc) has considered the scope and ambit of the ratio laid ... the case of gurupad khandappa magdum : 129itr440(sc) had laid down the proposition that when a female member who inherits an interest in the joint family property under section 6 of the hindu succession act, files a suit for partition expressing her willingness to go out of the family, then, she would be entitled to get both the interest she has inherited and the ... findings of the tribunal that on the death of shri digambar ranade, each coparcener acquired his share in the property and the hindu undivided family did not survive, cannot be accepted ...Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2003KAR1794
... the properties of the joint family in his hands devolved on his heirs, i.e., his sons and daughters as per section 6 of the hindu succession act, 1956, subject to rights of maintenance of defendant no. 2 krishnabai. opening of succession and devolving of properties operated immediately on the death of vyankat and the joint family properties stood vested in the heirs of ... vyankat. defendant no. 6 was adopted by defendant no. 2 about four months after the death of vyankat by which time the properties ... concurrent findings of fact the learned counsel for the appellants did not question the validity of the adoption of defendant no. 6. however, he urged that clause c of section 12 of the hindu adoption and maintenance act, 1956 precluded defendant no. 6 to claim share in the property, already vested in the heirs of vyankat before his adoption, and that the restriction imposed ... on the rights of adopted child under clause c of section 12 is applicable to the interest vested in sole surviving coparcener ...Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC3332; 2006(6)ALT38(SC); 2006(4)AWC3845(SC); JT2006(12)SC288; (2007)1MLJ792(SC); 2007MPLJ467(SC); 2006(II)OLR(SC)732; 2006(9)SCALE509; (2006)8SCC656
... the present case it would be useful to refer to the provisions of section 6 of the hindu succession act, 1956 (in short 'the act'), as it stood prior to its amendment by hindu succession (amendment) act, 2005, and the same run thus: section 6 - devolution of interest in coparcenary property : when a male hindu dies after the commencement of this act, having at the time of his death an interest in a mitakshara ... property would not devolve upon the surviving coparcener, by survivorship but upon his heirs by intestate succession. explanation 1 to section 6 of the act provides a mechanism under which undivided interest of a deceased coparcener can be ascertained and, i.e., that the interest of a hindu mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to be the share in the property that would have been allotted ... coparcenary property, his interest in the property shall devolve by survivorship upon the surviving members of the coparcenary and not in accordance with this act: provided ...Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC1619; 2004(2)ALD108(SC); 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)386; 2004(2)AWC998(SC); (SCSuppl)2004(2)CHN184; 2004(1)CTC619; [2004(2)JCR98(SC)]; JT2004(2)SC114; 2004(4)KarLJ355; 2004(2
... was submitted that upon the death of defendant no. 1, the plaintiff was entitled to only 11/40th share in item no. 1 property in terms of section 6 of the hindu succession act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') and 1/10th share in item no. 2 property, but the high court committed an error in holding that he was entitled to 11/30th share ... dated 23rd february, 1978 was held to be invalid. it was further held that the defendants failed to prove due execution of the will. the court held that section 6a of hindu succession (karnataka amendment) act, 1990 [hereinafter referred to as 'the karnataka amendment'] which conferred equal right to a daughter in co-parcenary property, was applicable in the present case, but defendant nos ... the high court was not justified in holding that the plaintiff was entitled to 11/30th share in the joint family property as under the provisions of section 6 of the act, interest of a male hindu in the mitakshara coparcenary property shall not devolve by survivorship upon the surviving members of coparcenary in case he died leaving behind a female relative specified in ... class i of the schedule of the act or a male relative specified therein claiming through such female, in which event the said interest shall be inherited by his heirs. explanation i to section 6 lays down that for the purposes of this section, the interest of a hindu mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to be the share in the ...Tag this Judgment!