Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: hindu succession act 1956 1956 section 6 Page 1 of about 621,274 results (1.401 seconds)

Aug 29 2001 (HC)

Ramanlal Vs. Smt. Heeramani and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 2002(5)WLC846; 2003(2)WLN332

..... the mother of defendant no. 1 was not entitled for any share in the property. 16. first of all it will be relevant to quote section 6 of the hindu succession act 1956. 17. proviso to section 6 of the hindu succession act, 1956 provides as under:-'provided that, if the deceased had left him surviving a female relative specified in class i of the schedule or a male ..... relative, specified in that class who claims, through such female relative, the interest of the deceased in the mitakshara coparcenery property shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession ..... : vidyaben v. jagdishchandra nandshankar bhatt and ors. (6), and the division bench judgment of orissa high court delivered in : hemalata dei v. umashankari moharna and ors. (7), wherein it was held that when there is only one male heir then there is no bar under section 23 of the hindu succession act, 1956. 58. the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon ..... 1 that after death of father of defendant no. 1, all properties became his personal properties in view of the sections 6 and 8 of the act of 1956, but it is true that shares are calculated as per the provisions of hindu succession act. 20. so far as question of title of 'raman mansion' is concerned, the plaintiff stated that this property was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 22 2004 (HC)

Smt. Puttamma and ors. Vs. H.K. Ramegowda

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR2004KAR1930; 2004(6)KarLJ146

..... share in the property has been rejected concurrently by the courts below. the said finding is sound and proper.6. the provisions of section 8 of mysore hindu law women's rights act 1933 (hereinafter called mysore act 1933) and 6 of hindu succession act, 1956 are reproduced hereunder for convenient reference.'section 8: certain females entitled to shares at partition :-(1 (a)at a partition of joint family property between ..... not also arise. this would mean that section 8(1)(d) of the mysore act has been superseded by the proviso to section 6 of the 1956 act to the extent stated.10. the supreme court has laid down that the provisions of section 8(1)(d) of the mysore act are superceded by the provisions of section 6 of the hindu succession act. in the instant case we are concerned with the ..... provisions of section 8(1)(a) and 8(1 .....

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!

Mar 18 2004 (HC)

idam Swarajya Laxmi Vs. Idam Vani and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2004(5)ALD414

..... the coparceners of the hindu joint family along with late dr.i.shyam sunder and they are also entitled for the division of the plaint schedule properties as coparceners ..... remains unmarried. therefore, under a.p. amendment to hindu succession act, 1956 by act no. 13 of 1986, she shall be deemed to be a coparcener of the joint family of late idam ramulu and his sons from the date of her!birth. the partition of the joint family properties is said !to be divided under section 6 of hindu succession act, 1956. the plaintiff nos. 2 and 3 also became ..... am of the view that the court below has not correctly decided this issue.in the case of jai singh v. shakuntala the supreme court held that:-'section 16 of the hindu adoptions and maintenance act, 1956 envisages a statutory presumption that in the event of there being a registered document pertaining to adoption there would be a presumption that adoption has been made ..... the presumption available in favour of the defendants 1 and 12. in the case of sushil chandra v. smt. bhoop kunwar and others it was held that'section 16 of the hindu adoption and maintenance act, 1956 casts a duty on the courts to draw a mandatory presumption to the effect that whenever there is a registered document 'purporting to record an adoption made .....

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!

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!

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!

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!

Apr 10 1968 (HC)

Chinnappa Gounder and anr. Vs. Valliammal

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1969Mad187

..... share of the suit properties by virtue of the proviso to section 6 read with section 8 of the hindu succession act of 1956. the reason is that though the father-in-law of the respondent and the first appellant constituted an hindu undivided family, by virtue of the provision contained in the proviso to section 6 of the hindu succession act, 1956, his undivided interest in the joint family properties would devolve by ..... way of succession and will not go by way of survivorship. if that be the case, his interest in ..... the various heirs get under the hindu succession act 1956 and therefore there is no justification whatever for importing the position under the earlier act by way of analogy into the position under the 1956 act.4. mr. sivamani, drew my attention to the provisions contained in the hindu adoptions and maintenance act, 1956 and particularly to sections 19, 21 and 22. section 19 of that act deals with the right of a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 24 1993 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. H.H. Rajendrasinghji, Maharaja of Rajpi ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : [1995]213ITR225(Bom)

..... hands of rajendrasinghji during his lifetime. 15. the deceased rajendrasinghji died on february 2, 1963. since this is after the coming into force of the hindu succession act of 1956, devolution of rajpipla palace is governed by section 6 of the hindu succession act, 1956. from the facts on record, it is clear that rajendrasinghji, on his death, left behind, apart from his son raghubirsinghji, also his widow and two ..... daughters. under section 6 of the hindu succession act ordinarily, when a male hindu dies after the commencement of the hindu succession act, 1956, having at the time of his death an interest in a mitakshara coparcenary property, his interest in the property would devolve by survivorship upon ..... family. but in respect of the interest of rajendrasinghji in the said hindu undivided family property, a portion of which devolved by intestate succession on raghubirsinghji under the hindu succession act of 1956, raghubirsinghji would be entitled to it as an individual inheriting the property under section 6 of the hindu succession act. the income, therefore, which accrues to raghubirsinghji in respect of the said property will have to be proportionately .....

Tag this Judgment!


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