Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: hindu inheritance removal of disabilities act 1928 section 3 saving and exception Page 1 of about 33 results (0.029 seconds)

May 19 1959 (HC)

Venkatalakshmammal Vs. Balakrishnachari and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1960Mad270

..... of 1952.(12) on these facts there can be no doubt that the conclusion of the learned district munsif is correct. pappachari died on 26-5-1928. the hindu inheritance (removal of disabilities) act of 1928 came into force on 20-9-1928 and it is not retrospective. therefore, on the date of death of pappachari, his son the congenital deaf and dumb moogu puttuswami was disqualified and ..... dr. jolly, those who were incapable of work or trade on account of physical spiritual or moral defects were excluded from inheritance. (jolly l and c 182) baudhayana's bracketing together the minors and the disqualified heirs (baudhayana ii 2-3-36 (minors); 37-40 (disqualified heirs) and the illustrations of disqualified heirs in the earlier dharmasutras (apas ii 6-14-1 ..... pappachari, found that the three items of properties covered by the suit were the ancestral properties of pappachari and not his self-acquired properties as contended by the second plaintiff.(3) the learned subordinate judge after receiving this finding held that these items were enjoyed by pappachari as his ancestral properties which he got after partition and not his self-acquired ..... puttuswami mortgaged the same properties on 4-2-1950 in favour of defendants 2 and 5 for a consideration of rs. 700/- for discharging the prior mortgage debt dated 30-3-1943 and also the alleged debts of puttuswami.the learned district munsif decreed the suit for redemption holding that since puttuswami was held to be congenitally deaf and dumb, he .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 21 1972 (HC)

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

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1973Mad36

..... to the provisions of the statute 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 ..... null and void and not binding upon him and for partition and separate possession of his one-third share in all items of the properties except arable lands and one half share in arable lands. the case of the plaintiff was that the ancestral business was one in yam in kotwal ..... used to talk and he talked in monosyllables and his gait was shabby and shuffling and that condition had been progressing gradually wound up by saving that the case was of mental defect amounting to imbecility unfit to manage his own affairs and that was a progressive condition which had been ..... contention that the suit itself was not maintainable since the appellant was not maintainable since the appellant was not entitled to claim partition. in paragraph 3 of the plaintiff-appellant is a person of defective understanding and an imbecile and as such incapable of protecting his own interest. in paragraph ..... , the next friend of the appellant was in the process of being examined. consequently it is necessary to examine the averments contained in paragraphs 3, 6 and 13 of the plaint to find out whether the fifth defendant was justified on the basis of those averments in putting forward the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 14 1960 (HC)

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

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1961Mad345

..... 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 or mental defect.'section 5 is a saving provision which says ..... of the management of any religious charitable trust. this act, we may observe, corresponds to act xii of 1928 in british india. that act amended the hindu law by providing that 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 ..... in such circumstances it cannot be held that the interests of the next friend were in any way adverse to those of the lunatic plaintiff. the suit was properly framed.3. the issue as regards the alleged marriage between the plaintiff and the next friend was wholly unnecessary for disposal of the suit. considerable time of the court and the ..... 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. we fail to see in the present case any scope for retrospective operation because .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 23 1964 (SC)

Kamalammal and ors. Vs. Venkatalakshmi Ammal and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1965SC1349

..... one born deaf and dumb where the defect is incurable, is 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 ..... and share-enjoyers which is adverted to in the sarasvati vilasa, is illogical and unsound and does not accord with the smritis or the authoritative commentaries which expound the law. (3)the sarasvati vilasa is a commentary of doubtful authority and cannot be utilised for laying down propositions or drawing inferences which are not supported by other ancient law books and ..... on is also extracted. at the outset, we might point out that the portion dealing with exclusion from inheritance occurs in ch. ii, section 10 which deals with obstructed heritage or sapratibandha daya: the first placitum in this chapter reads:'the author states an exception to what has been said by him respecting the succession of the son, the widow and other heirs .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 14 1960 (SC)

R. Muthammal (Died) and ors. Vs. Sri Subramaniaswami Devasthanam, Tiru ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1960SC601; 1973LabIC1234; (1960)IIMLJ64(SC); [1960]2SCR729; [1976]SuppSCR121

..... contrary. in two cases before the privy council it was assumed that madness need not be congenital. it may also be noted that when the legislature passed the hindu inheritance (removal of disabilities) act xii of 1928 making the change to madness from birth as a ground of exclusion the law was not made retrospective, thus recognising the correctness of the judicial exposition of the original ..... properties to which it claimed title and for mesne profits. the properties were shown in various schedules annexed to the plaint; but it is unnecessary to refer to those schedules except where the needs of the judgment so require. one of the contentions raised by the plaintiff-devasthanam in this suit was that the first defendant, ramasami pillai, was not ..... possession of these properties. the suit was decreed on september 19, 1927. on october 30, 1927, p. picha pillai (defendant 7) and serindia pillai sent a notice, ex.p-3, informing m. picha pillai that he could take possession of the properties covered by the decree. this notice was refused and returned to the senders. m. picha pillai died soon ..... joined as defendants. the suit was filed by sri subramaniaswami devasthanam, tiruchendur (hereinafter called for brevity, the devasthanam), and the devasthanam is the only contesting respondent in this court. 3. one poosa pichai pillai had five sons and three daughters, of whom meenakshisundaram pillai died on may 21, 1919. before his death meenakshisundaram pillai executed a registered will on may .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 24 1960 (HC)

Bapuram Vedavyasa Rao Vs. Bapuram Narayan Rao and anr.

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1962Kant18; AIR1962Mys18

..... 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 ..... it is necessary to go deep into the matter in this respect as it is clear that the first defendant had no other source of income excepting the income realised from the family properties. on taking into consideration the extent of the family properties and their probable income, we are satisfied that ..... unsound mind.(7) we are unable to accept the contention of shri h.lakshmanaswamy the learned counsel for the appellant that p.w. 3 is disqualified to act as the next friend of the plaintiff as she is not living with him at present. we do not think that there is any ..... devolved on the plaintiff after the death of his brothers ramappa and narasappa. the acquisitions made by the first defendant are evidence by exhibits d-3 to d-9.they were all made subsequent to 1924 by which time the plaintiff was in possession of all the family properties. there is ..... while the plaintiff has come up with a memorandum of cross-objections disputing the correctness of the decree to the extent it went against him. (3) we may first take up the memorandum of cross-objections as we think that there is no substance in it. the plaintiff has not impleaded .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 01 1946 (PC)

Kesava Pandithan Vs. Govindan and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1946Mad287; (1946)1MLJ259

..... the opinion which he had formed of the effect of the hindu inheritance (removal of disabilities) act, the learned judge allowed the appeal, but granted a certificate under clause 15 of the letters patent which has entitled 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 ..... contractual capacity is final.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 ..... the hindu law, other than a person who is and has been from birth a lunatic or idiot, shall be excluded .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 29 2000 (HC)

Girja Singh and anr. Vs. Gaynwanti Devi and ors.

Court : Patna

..... or a congenital idiot was debarred from inheritence amd such disqualifying the heirs are enumerated under art. 98 of mullan's hindu law. but the hindu inheritance (removal of disabilities) act, 1928, no person, other than a person who is and has beenfrom birth a lunatic or idiot, is excluded from inheritance. by birth idiot means the person is ..... by the original court had not been considered by the appellate court, cannot be a point for reversing the appellate courts judgment as required under section 100 of thecode of civil procedure. 12. the geneology given by the plaintiffs in their plaint regarding the descendency of both the plaintiffs and the ..... uncalled for and cannot be allowed even if it is considered that the plaintiffs have acquired ownership rightly over a portion of suit property measuring 3 1/2 kathas only. thus, without going to the defence case, as to whether the defendants have acquired right on purchase of equity of ..... the lower appellate court that after the sale of shambhu to jhingur and by turn, jhingur to harihar sao in the family of defendants, only 3 1/2 kathas land remained in the share of andhiya which can at best be sold to the plaintiffs predecessor. then the question comes in ..... while defendant nos. 5 and 6 are from the branch of harihar singh (defendant no. 6) who died during the pendency of the suit. 3. the history behind the mortgage on which redemption has been claimed has been elaborated by the plaintiffs in the following manner. shambhu and bhikhar were .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 19 1951 (HC)

Minor Ramaiya Konar Alias Ramaswami Konar, by Father and Guardian Nate ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1951Mad954; (1951)IIMLJ314

..... hindu law except to the extent forbidden by its plain terms. the hindu law as to the grounds of axclusion from inheritance has been considerably modified by hindu inheritance (removal of disabilities) act, 1928. but even after this act congential idiocy or lunacy is a ground of exclusion from inheritance. unchastity is a ground of exclusion of hindu widows from inheritance to their husband's estate has not been removed by that act which removed ..... section 3 did not make any exception or impose any restriction on the right conferred on the widow. the answer to this contention is that if by any rule of law in force at the time of the enactment, there is a disqualification or disability from acquiring any right, unless such disqualification or disability is expressly or by necessary intendment removed by the act ..... placed by the learned counsel on the language of section 2 of the act which runs thus:'notwithstanding any rule of hindu law or custom to the contrary, the provisions of section 3 shall apply when a hindu dies intestate.'it is said that the disqualification of a hindu widow to inherit her husband's estate arising from her unchastity is ..... 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.8. i have, therefore, come to the conclusion that we are not obliged to hold that the effect .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 25 1987 (HC)

Raj Kumari Sharma Vs. Rajinder Nath Dewan and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : AIR1987Delhi323; 1987(13)DRJ139

..... of a widow by remarriage. the hindus were permitted to dispose of their property by will for the first time by the hindu wills act, 1870. the hindu inheritance (removal of disabilities) act, 1928 removed the disqualification of congenital lunacy and idiocy. the hindu law of inheritance (amendment) act, 1929 altered the order of intestate succession and placed certain heirs in a higher rank on the basis of close relationship with ..... 'heirs' has not been used in its ordinary or natural sense' (see 'angurhala mullick v. deburata mullick', : [1951]2scr1125 ).(24) before dealing with the scope of the exception to section 111 as to 'a class of persons described as standing in a particular degree of kindred to a specified individual', it is necessary to determine whether the gift of the ..... to a specified individual, namely, legal heirs of ram nath. they are all first degree heirs according to hindu law of succession. according to mr. arun mohan, the exception applies only where there is a bequest to a (1) class of persons, (2) described, (3) as standing in a particular degree kindred and (4) to a specified individual, then and then alone ..... vest until that event happens. (2) a legacy bequeathed in case a specified uncertain event shall not happen does not vest until the happening of that event becomes impossible. (3) in either case, until the condition has fulfillled, the interest of the legatee is called contingent. explanationn.-where a fund is bequeathed to any person upon his attaining a .....

Tag this Judgment!

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