Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: hindu inheritance removal of disabilities act 1928 section 2 persons not to be excluded from inheritance or rights in joint family property Page 1 of about 49 results (0.065 seconds)

Mar 21 1972 (HC)

K.P. Pakkiriswamy Mudaliar and ors. Vs. K.P. Krishnaswamy Mudaliar and ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1973Mad36

..... to which he was making a reference. section 2 of the hindu inheritance (removal of disabilities) act. 1928 (act xii of 1928) provides that notwithstanding any rule of hindu law or custom to the contrary, no person governed by the hindu law other than a person who is and has been from birth a lunatic or idiot shall be excluded from inheritance or from any right or share in joint family property by reason only of any disease deformity or ..... may mean that a person who has not been a lunatic from birth can have a share in the joint family property but certainly it would not mean that a ..... states that under the hindu inheritance removal of disabilities act such a person not being a lunatic from birth is entitled to a share. notwithstanding this he expresses his opinion that all that the hindu inheritance (removal of disabilities) act lays down is that a person other than one who has been from birth a lunatic or an idiot shall not be excluded from inheritance or from any right or share in the joint family property and that no doubt .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 24 1960 (HC)

Bapuram Vedavyasa Rao Vs. Bapuram Narayan Rao and anr.

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1962Kant18; AIR1962Mys18

..... the true scope of the right of a person of unsound mind in the family property.with this background we may now proceed that consider the scope of section 2 which reads thus:'persons not to be excluded from inheritance or rights in joint family property ---not with standing any rule of hindu law or custom to the contrary, no person who is and has been from birth lunatic or idiot shall in joint family property by reason only of ..... person continues to be of unsound mind, no one on his behalf can demand or enforce partition.the position of the law bearing on this point is elaborately discussed in ratneshwari nandan singh v. bhagwati saran singh, air 1950 fc 142. but the question for our determination is whether the ancient hindu law on this point was amended by section 2 of the hindu inheritance (removal of disabilities) act ..... xii of 1928 which shall be hereinafter called 'the act'. the act in question specifically says that it is an amending act. the preamble to that act reads : 'whereas, it is expedient to amend the hindu law relating to exclusion of certain classes of heirs from inheritance...................' from this, it is clear the purpose of the act was not merely to clear .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 21 1972 (HC)

K.P. Pakkiriswamy Mudaliar by His Wife and Next Friend Padmavathi Amma ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1972)2MLJ341

..... statute to which he was making a reference. section 2 of the hindu inheritance (removal of disabilities) act (xii of 1928) provides that notwithstanding any rule of hindu law or custom to the contrary, no person governed by the hindu law, other than a person who is and has been from birth a lunatic or idiot shall be excluded from inheritance or from any right or share in joint family property by reason only of any disease, deformity ..... meant that a person who has not been a lunatic from birth can have a share in the ..... states that under the hindu inheritance removal of disabilities act such a person not being a lunatic front-birth is entitled to a share. notwithstanding this, he expresses his opinion that all that the hindu inheritance removal of disabilities act lays down is that a person other than one who has been from birth a lunatic or an idiot shall not be excluded from inheritance or from any right or share in the joint family property and that no doubt .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 01 1946 (PC)

Kesava Pandithan Vs. Govindan and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1946Mad287; (1946)1MLJ259

..... the plaintiff to prefer the present appeal.4. section 2 of the hindu inheritance (removal of disabilities) act provides that notwithstanding any rule of hindu law or custom to the contrary, no person governed by the hindu law, other than a person who is and has been from birth a lunatic or idiot, shall be excluded from inheritance or from any right or share in the joint family property by reason only of disease, deformity, or physical ..... .3. mr. justice somayya did not consider that amirthammal v. vallimayil ammal : air1942mad693 had decided that a disqualified person who happens to be the last surviving coparcener of a joint hindu family is, by reason of survivorship, entitled to enjoy the family estate and was of the opinion that the provisions of the hindu inheritance (removal of disabilities) act, 1928, precluded the plaintiff from recovering the property from the first and second defendants ..... . the question whether the plaintiff could dispossess the defendants after the death of muniyan did not arise and therefore the learned judge did not deal with it. in view of the opinion which he had formed of the effect of the hindu inheritance (removal of disabilities) act, the learned judge .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 23 1964 (SC)

Kamalammal and ors. Vs. Venkatalakshmi Ammal and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1965SC1349

..... one such. however, by statute--the hindu inheritance (removal of disabilities) act, 1928 (central act xii of 1928) --this was altered for its section 2 enacted :'notwithstanding any rule of hindu law or custom to the contrary, no person governed by hindu law, other than a person who is and has been from birth a lunatic or idiot, shall be excluded from inheritance or from any right or share in joint family property by reason only of any disease, deformity ..... that a disqualified heir under the hindu law was capable of transmitting rights to joint-family property to his issue so much so that on the birth of a son to a disqualified heir that son became a coparcener entitled to a share along with the other coparceners, and that in this respect it mattered little that the disqualified person was not a full-fledged coparcener. muthusami ..... to, were (1)that the basis on which the disqualification rests is inconsistent with such afflicted person having any scintilla of interest in the joint family property. if he was right there, the death of the other coparceners, leaving him the sole member of the family could not improve his position. (2)the distinction between share-takers and share-enjoyers which is adverted to in the sarasvati vilasa .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 11 1996 (HC)

Radhey Shyam and ors. Vs. Meera Devi and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : II(1997)DMC581; 1997(1)WLC567

..... changes brought about by the hindu inheritance (removal of disabilities) act, 1928 the disquali- fied hindu, his wife and children were always considered entitled to maintenance out of the property which he would have inherited but for the disability and where he was excluded from a share on partition, he, his wife and children were entitled to have a provision made for their maintenance out of the joint family property. the same is the ..... in her favour in several respects. but the hindu women's right to property act, 1937 made some very significant changes in her said right. though her right to maintenance, as a widow, was not abolished in express terms yet the recognition of her right to a share, on partition of the hindu undivided family property, under sections 2 and 3 of that act, left little for her to claim maintenance. but since there ..... their remedy against the karta of the hindu undivided family or the manager of the joint family property before the civil court according to the personal law governing their rights for maintenance out of joint family property. in that sense of the matter, radhey shyam petitioner, the karta of the joint family or the manager of the joint family property, who may be liable to maintain the mentally disabled brother, ram avtar, his wife and minor .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 14 1960 (HC)

Parameswaram Pillai Velayudham Pillai Represented by Next Friend Neela ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1961Mad345

..... in schedule a. this point appears to be concluded by act xviii of 1114 m. e. it is called the travancore hindu inheritance (removal of disabilities) act. the substantive section is section 4 which runs thus:-'notwithstanding any rule of hindu law or custom to the contrary, no person governed by hindu law shall be excluded from inheritance, or from, any right or share in joint family property by reason only of a disease, deformity or physical ..... in joint family property by reason only of any disease, deformity or physical or mental defect.the travancore act went further than the indian enacment because even congenital lunacy or idiocy is not a ground for exclusion from inheritance. our attention was drawn to an observation in the recent decision of the supreme court in muthammal v. s. sevastanam, : [1960]2scr729 , that act xii of 1928 was not retrospective ..... next friend of the lunatic plaintiff was his legally wedded wife. the learned judge found that the plaintiffs marriage with the next friend has not been proved beyond doubt and therefore she was not his legally wedded wife.2. before we deal with the main point in this case we shall briefly deal with a point raised by mr. sarangapani aiyangar, learned counsel .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 14 1960 (HC)

Parameswaram Pillai Velayudham Pillai (Being of Unsound Mind Represent ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1962)1MLJ358

..... schedule a. this point appears to be concluded by act xviii of n 14 m.e. it is called the travancore hindu inheritance (removal of disabilities) act. the substantive section is section 4 which runs thus:notwithstanding any rule of hindu law or custom to the contrary, no person governed by hindu law shall be excluded from inheritance, or from any right or share in joint family property by reason only of a disease, deformity or physical ..... in joint family property by reason only of any disease, deformity or physical: or mental defect. the travancore act went farther than the indian enactment because even congenital lunacy or idiocy is not a ground for exclusion from inheritance. our attention was drawn to an observation in the recent decision of the. supreme court in muthammal v. sri s. sevasthanam : [1960]2scr729 , that act xii of 1928 was not ..... friend of the lunatic plaintiff was his legally wedded wife. the learned judge found that the plaintiff's marraige with the next friend had not been proved beyond doubt and therefore she was not his legally wedded wife.2. before we deal with the main point in this case we shall briefly deal with a point raised by mr. sarangapani ayyangar, learned counsel .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 15 1983 (HC)

Kuppu Alias Kuppammal Vs. Kuppuswami Mandiri and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1984)2MLJ224

..... defects, deformities and diseases excluded an heir from inheritance. this was substantially remedied by the hindu inheritance (removal of disabilities act)1928, which ruled that 'no person, other than a person who is and has been from birth a lunatic or idiot, shall be excluded from inheritance or from any right or share in joint family property by reason only of any disease, deformity or physical or mental defect'. the present section discards almost all the grounds ..... the general rule of hindu law that a son excludes the widow in respect of separate property and the surviving coparceners exclude the widow in respect of joint family property that are contrary to the provisions of section 3 and section 2 declares that notwithstanding these rules of hindu law, the provisions of section 3 shall apply. the act does not purport to abrogate the pre-existing rule of hindu law excluding an unchaste widow from ..... succession to the property of her husband.39. panchapakesa aiyar .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 04 1984 (HC)

Udayanath Mohapatra Vs. Kanchan Mohapatrani and ors.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : 1984(II)OLR986

..... . formerly according to the original text of hindu-law there were several grounds under which a person was disqualified or excluded from inheritance. by the hindu inheritance (removal of disabilities) act, 1928, the law in this respect was codified. under this act no person, other than a person who is and has been from birth a lunatic or idiot, is excluded from inheritance or from any right or share in joint family property by reason only of any disease ..... . 2;(vii) plaintiff is entitled to half share in schedule a properties only.9. the learned subordinate judge under issue no. 1 has made a discussion of the oral and documentary evidence on record to come to a finding that rameshchandra was not born blind. the learned trial court proceeded on the basis that a person who was born blind is disqualified from inheriting the joint, family properties ..... judge has calculated the share of defendant no. 2 to be 5/16ths and that of each of the defendants nos. 1, 3 and 4 to be 1/16th in schedule a properties. the aforesaid specification of the shares is not correct. section 6 of the hindu succession act provides the rules of devolution of interest in coparcenary property. ramachandra died in 1964 and therefore, the provision .....

Tag this Judgment!


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