Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: hindu succession act 1956 1956 section 6 Page 2 of about 613,019 results (1.744 seconds)

Nov 23 1992 (HC)

Dagadu Patilba Kharde and anr. Vs. Bhamabai Alias Shamabai W/O Deoram ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 1994(2)BomCR489; (1993)95BOMLR662

..... this case.14. madras high court also has taken similar view in veerasekhara v. amirthavalliammal, : air1975mad51 and it was held that proviso to section 6 dealt not only with intestate succession, but also with testamentary succession, and section 30 of the hindu succession act, 1956, expressly enabled a coparcener to dispose of his interest in the coparcenary property testamentarily. it was held, that in the event of a testamentary ..... was a joint family property of the family of rambhau and his sons, section 6 of the hindu succession act will have its own operation in the context of devolution of deoram's share in the said property. section 6 of the hindu succession act, 1956 reads 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 coparcenery ..... . v. p. nachiar ammal : air1976mad393 it was held that, in a notional partition statutorily contemplated under the proviso read with explanation 1 to section 6 of the hindu succession act, 1956, the interest of the deceased coparcener in the joint family devolved by succession, in the absence of testamentary disposition by the concerned member, on all the class i heirs mentioned in the proviso and that, the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 05 1994 (HC)

Baburao Parashuram Ukharde and ors. Vs. Laxmibai W/O Parashuram Ukhard ...

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!

Sep 02 2008 (HC)

Bayya Guravamma and anr. Vs. Oduru Haripriya and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2009(2)ALT177

..... self-explanatory, the same need not be repeated again.28. as already referred to supra, the counsel representing the parties made certain submissions relating to sections 6, 8, 30 of the hindu succession act, 1956, and section 12 of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956, as well.29. in kona adinarayana v. dronavalli venkata subbayya and anr. air 1937 mad 869 the learned judge of the madras high court ..... . the learned counsel placed strong reliance on certain decisions to substantiate his submissions. the learned counsel also contended that while working out the shares in the light of sections 6, 8 and 30 of the hindu succession act, 1956, the then minor plaintiffs would be entitled to reduce their shares only i.e., only their shares in the half share of the father and not in ..... devareddy madalasa and she begot both the plaintiffs through him. the plaintiffs had become coparceners with the defendant in respect of all those properties as per the provisions of section 29a of the hindu succession act, 1956, as amended by the a.p. state and thus each of the plaintiffs and defendant no. 1 was entitled to an undivided 1/3rd share in those properties .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 06 2011 (HC)

Sadashiv Sakharam Patil and ors. Vs. Chandrakant Gopal Desale and ors.

Court : Mumbai

..... the properties of their deceased mothers. 4. upon the case that they are ancestral properties, the heirs claim that muktabai was a coparcener under section 6 of the hindu succession act 1956 as amended by the hindu succession (amendment) act 39 of 2005. it is claimed that muktabai being a daughter of a coparcener viz: sakharam became a coparcener by her birth in her own ..... and to render social justice by giving them equal status in the society. the act came into force from 9th september 2005 and the statutory provisions under section 6 of hindu succession act, 1956 thereof created a new right. the provisions are not expressly made retrospective by the legislature. the act is clear and there is no ambiguity. therefore, words cannot be interpolated. they ..... do not bear more than one meaning. the act is therefore, prospective. it creates a substantive right ..... the dwelling house that the deceased would not take the share was accepted. the shares devolved upon the two sons in 1998 by application of section 6 r.w. section 8 of the old hindu succession act of 1956. 22.the judgment in the case of champabai relates to the earlier state amendment. the central amendment is not in terms thereof entirely. hence .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 18 1963 (HC)

Shiramabai Vs. Kalgonda Bhimgonda and ors.

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!

Jul 22 2004 (HC)

Harischandra Vithoba Narawade and ors. Vs. Smt. Vatsalabai W/O Narayan ...

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!

Dec 12 2002 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vishwas D. Ranade

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : [2004]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 : [1987]163itr31(sc) has considered the scope and ambit of the ratio laid ..... the case of gurupad khandappa magdum : [1981]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!

Feb 25 2003 (HC)

Namdev Vyankat Ghadge and anr. Vs. Chandrakant Ganpat Chadge and ors.

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!

Sep 18 2006 (SC)

Anar Devi and ors. Vs. Parmeshwari Devi and ors.

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!

Feb 04 2004 (SC)

P.S. Sairam and anr. Vs. P.S. Rama Rao Pisey and ors.

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!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //