Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: hindu disposition of property act 1916 Page 1 of about 709 results (0.044 seconds)

Jun 22 2007 (HC)

Madhukar Rajanna Darbhe Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through the Secretar ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2007(5)ALLMR339; 2008(2)BomCR418

..... have granted letters of administration with the will or with a copy of an authenticated copy of the will annexed.after hindu wills act, 1870, but before coming into force of indian succession act, 1925, on 28/9/1916, the hindu disposition of property act, 1916 (xv of 1916) was enacted which applied to whole of india except part b states and except the state of madras. by section ..... 2 thereof it was declared that disposition of property by a hindu either inter vivos or by will could not be invalid only for the reason ..... that person for whose benefit it was made was not in existence at the date of such disposition. it is therefore apparent that first enactment in relation to hindu wills was in 1870 and thereafter in 1916. these enactment applied in ..... certain areas only for historical reasons. this treatment has been maintained while enacting indian succession act, 1925. provisions of section 213(2)(i) read with section 57 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 16 1940 (PC)

Gadadhur Mullick Vs. the Official Trustee of Bengal

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1940)42BOMLR621

..... destructive of all future gifts is inconsistent with any recognition of contingent or executors bequests. it has effect (save in so far as the legislature has abrogated it: hindu wills act, 1870, hindu disposition of property act, 1916), to limit the class of persons who are capable of taking under a will, restricting it to persons who either in fact or in contemplation of law are in ..... between living people, it is to be recognised that the hindu law has been greatly influenced by the notion of ' relinquishment in favour of a sentient being ' as ..... of effective testamentary power and which was explained in the tagore case with reference to the hindu law of gift is not restricted by further conditions intended to meet or to placate a theory which regards immediacy of effect as a necessary feature of every disposition of property. in truth, inheritance is not donation, and a bequest is not a donation de praesenti ..... case had dealt abruptly rather than meticulously with hindu law and was in some respects lacking in precision: hence subsequent decisions must be scrutinised to see if they restrict the freedom of bequest which it allowed.14. in a case which raised a question as to the property over which the testator had power of disposition, sir james colvile in 1867 [babro beer .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 13 1990 (HC)

Chetti Balakrishnamma Alias Balakrishna Vs. Chetti Chandrasekhar Rao a ...

Court : Orissa

Reported in : AIR1991Ori332

..... . under section 111 of the succession act, a bequest made to a class of persons described becomes valid only if the persons in whose favour ..... the provisions contained in sections 111 to 113 of the succession act. under the old hindu law, a bequest in favour of a person not in existence at the time of testator's death was being considered to be invalid. but in view of the hindu disposition of property act, 1916, as well as the succession act, the said position no longer remains the correct position of law ..... the property is bequeathed are alive at the time of death of the testator. but there is an exception to said ..... , even though the plaintiffs parents are signatories to the family arrangement of the year 1961 under ext. 4, the plaintiff will not be bound in any manner and the disposition of the property under ext. a is invalid and inoperative. 11. so far as the fourth point for consideration is concerned, we really fail to understand as to why instead of granting .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 15 1930 (PC)

Sewdayal Ramjeedas Vs. Official Trustee of Bengal

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1931Cal651

..... of the provisions of section 5 as unamended or whether, the parties being hindus, that section has no application. mr. s.m. boss points out that although the hindu disposition of property act, 1916, expressly makes the dispositions thereby rendered valid subject to the limitations provided by sub section 13 and 14, nothing is said of section 15.37. on this point reference is also made ..... in chap. 2 thereof was to be deemed to affect any rule of hindu, mahomedan, or buddhist law.27. in 1916, that is to say, prior to the data of any of the deeds with which this summons is concerned, it was enacted by the hindu disposition of property act, which extends to the whole of british india except the province of madras that, subject to ..... the limitations and provisions therein specified, no disposition of property by a hindu, whether by transfer inter vivos .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 20 1971 (HC)

N. Radhakrishna Naidu and ors. Vs. S. Govindaswami Naidu and anr.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1975)1MLJ212

..... british india except the province of madras for which legislation had already been made by the local act of 1914. after the act of 1916, was passed, the high court of madras held as to the ..... validated gifts and bequests in favour of unborn person was the hindu transfers and bequests act, 1914. this was an act of the madras legislature. it applied in terms to the whole of the state of madras and was intended so to apply. it was followed by the hindu disposition of property act, 1916, which was an act of the imperial legislature. it applied to the whole of ..... 1914, and 1921 apply to the whole state of madras, and the act of 1916 applies to the rest of india..with effect from 1st february, 1960; the hindu transfers and bequests act, 1914; and the hindu transfers and bequests (city of madras) act, 1921, stand repealed: and the hindu disposition of property act, 1960 has now been made applicable to the whole of india including the state ..... and city of madras excepting the state of jammu and kashmir.the resulting position is that a hindu can make a bequest in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 05 1949 (PC)

Aniruddha Mitra Vs. Administrator General Bengal

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR971

..... the date of the testator's death. this rule of law has been altered by three acts, namely, the hindu transfers and bequests act, 1914 (mad. act i of 1914), the hindu disposition of property act, 1916 (act xv of 1916), and the hindu transfers and bequests (city of madras) act, 1921 (mad. act viii of 1921). the madras act i of 1914 applies to the madras presidency except the town of madras : the madras ..... act viii of 1921 applies to the town of madras; and the hindu disposition of property act extends to the whole of ..... clauses of the will the learned judge summarised his conclusions as follows :-1. a bequest in favour of an unborn person is valid subject to the limitations contained in the hindu disposition of property act, 1916.2. the rules in sections 113 and 114 have to be applied as at the testator's death but are subject to the provisions of section 115 and the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 05 1949 (PC)

Aniruddha Mitra Vs. the Administrator General of Bengal and Others

Court : Privy Council

Reported in : AIR1949PC244

..... the date of the testator's death. this rule of law has been altered by three acts, namely, the hindu transfers and bequests act, 1914 (madras act i of 1914), the hindu disposition of property act, 1916 (act xv of 1916), and the hindu transfers and bequests [city of madras] act, 1921 (madras act viii of 1921). the madras act i of 1914 applies to the madras presidency except the town of madras: the madras ..... act viii [8] 1921 applies to the town of madras; and the hindu disposition of property act extends to the whole of ..... clauses of the will the learned judge summarised his conclusions as follows : "1. a bequest in favour of an unborn person is valid subject to the limitations contained in the hindu disposition of property act 1916. 2.the rules in ss. 113 and 114 have to be applied as at the testator's death but are subject to the provisions of s. 115 and the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 19 1945 (PC)

V. Kothandaraman Vs. V. Arumuga Naicker and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1945Mad431; (1945)1MLJ281

..... v. natarajan (1920) 40 m.l.j. 354 : i.l.r. 44 mad. 446 on the 16th december, 1920, this court held the act of 1914 to be invalid so far as the city of madras was concerned. by the hindu disposition of property act, 1916, the central legislature enacted similar provisions with regard to the whole of british india, except the province of madras. the ..... hindu transfers and bequests (city of madras) act, 1921, was passed in order to apply the same provisions to the city of madras.10. in ..... venkayamma v. narasamma : (1916)31mlj33 a bench of this court held that if a testator intended that his disposition ..... the effect of rendering the bequest to the unborn grandsons of the testator invalid.9. section 3 of the hindu transfers and bequests (city of madras) act, 1921, states that, subject to the limitations and provisions specified in the act, no disposition of property by a hindu, whether by transfer inter vivos or by will, shall be invalid by reason only that a person for whose .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 25 1949 (PC)

Rabindra Nath Deb Vs. Sushil Chandra Deb

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1952Cal427

..... is void under hindu law & that although under hindu disposition of property act (xv (15) of 1916) such a bequest has been validated the said act is not retrospective in its operation. the testatrix in this case died in the year 1908 & before the said act came into existence & as such the hindu disposition of property act 1916 has no ..... sen. it is not disputed that it is a settled rule of hindu law that a bequest in favour of a person not in existence at the death of the testator is void & that hindu disposition of property act of 1916 is not retrospective in its operation. that being so the point arising ..... not dispute that a bequest in favour of a person not in existence at the death of a testator is void under hindu law & that the hindu disposition of property act is not retrospective. but he contends that the entire bequest in favour of the male heirs of sarat chandra deb is void ..... family. udoy was a man of extravagant habits & an arrangement was entered into embodied in a deed by which the grandfather & father conveyed certain property declaring that satrujit himself & his own brothers who may be borne afterwards will be the permanent & rightful owners. their lordships held that the transfer ..... act) were placed before their lordships in support of the contention that when a gift is made to a class & some of the class are unable to take none can take. their lordships further held that cases are not rare in which a court of construction finding that the whole plan of a donor of property .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 16 1940 (PC)

Gadadhur Mullick and Others Vs. Official Trustee of Bengal and Others

Court : Privy Council

..... destructive of all future gifts is inconsistent with any recognition of contingent or executory bequests. it has effect (save in so far as the legislature has abrogated it: hindu wills act, 1870, hindu disposition of property act, 1916), to limit the class of persons who are capable of taking under a will, restricting it to persons who either in fact or in contemplation of law are in ..... living people. it is to be recognized that the hindu law has been greatly influenced by the notion of "relinquishment in favour of a sentient being" as ..... was explained in the tagore case (ia sup vol 47 (7) ) with reference to the hindu law of gift is not restricted by further conditions intended to meet or to placate a theory which regards immediacy of effect as a necessary feature of every disposition of property. in truth, inheritance is not donation, and a bequest is not a donation de praesenti between ..... (4) had dealt abruptly rather than meticulously with hindu law and was in some respects lacking in precision, hence subsequent decisions must be scrutinized to see if they restrict the freedom of bequest which it allowed. in a case which raised a question as to the property over which the testator had power of disposition, sir james colvile in 1867 (12 mia 1 .....

Tag this Judgment!


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