Category: Joint Family Property

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Sections 6 – Devolution of interest in coparcenary property – In order to ascertain the shares of the heirs in the property of a deceased coparcener, the first step is to ascertain the share of the deceased himself in the coparcenary property and Explanation 1 to Section 6 provides a fictional expedient, namely, that his share is deemed to be the share in the property that would have been allotted to him if a partition had taken place immediately before his death – Once that assumption has been made for the purpose of ascertaining the share of the deceased, one cannot go back on the assumption and ascertain the shares of the heirs without reference to it, and all the consequences which flow from a real partition have to be logically worked out, which means that the shares of the heirs must be ascertained on the basis that they had separated from one another and had received a share in the partition which had taken place during the life-time of the deceased.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DERHA — Appellant Vs. VISHAL AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 4494 of…

Suit for Partition – The Court found that ‘C’ remarriage extinguished her rights to her first husband’s property, and she could not pass on any title to the plaintiff – The Court applied the Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act, 1856, and relevant case law to determine the impact of Chiruthey’s remarriage on her property rights – The Supreme Court concluded that the plaintiff could not inherit the property through ‘C’, as her rights were nullified upon remarriage, and the deeds did not confer valid title.

2024 INSC 287 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KIZHAKKE VATTAKANDIYIL MADHAVAN (DEAD) THR. LRS. — Appellant Vs. THIYYURKUNNATH MEETHAL JANAKI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose…

Hindu Succession Act, 1955 – Section 16 – Partition Suit – Entitlement of share to the children of void or voidable marriages – If a marriage is considered void or invalid, the children born from that marriage still have a legal right to inherit their parent’s property

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJA GOUNDER AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M. SENGODAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.M. Sundresh and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ. ) Civil…

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Section 16 – Adoption Deed – Mere fact that a deed of adoption has been registered cannot be taken as evidence of proof of adoption, as an adoption deed never proves an adoption – Factum of adoption has to be proved by oral evidence of giving or taking of the child and that the necessary ceremonies, where they are necessary to be performed, were carried out in accordance with shastras.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOTURU NALINI KANTH — Appellant Vs. GAINEDI KALIPRASAD (DEAD, THROUGH LRS.) — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. ) Civil…

A combined reading of Section 15(1)(a) and Section 16 of the Act would make it manifest that the property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve, firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband. Therefore, the plaintiff being the widow of the pre-deceased son does not have the first right or entitlement to receive any share in the share of her mother-inlaw.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SACHIDHANANDAM SINCE DEAD THROUGH HIS LRS. — Appellant Vs. E. VANAJA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai, Hima Kohli and Prashant…

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 142 – (CrPC) – S 125(3) – Maintenance to wife – Fails to comply with the order for payment of maintenance – Husband abandoned the wife, and virtually fled to Australia – Recovery of arrears of maintenance on the ground that she lives with her widowed mother, on whom she is dependent expenses. for including litigation expenses – This Court is not powerless, but can issue appropriate directions, and even decrees, for doing complete justice between the parties – In other words, the power under Article 142 is meant to supplement the existing legal framework – Directions issued for sale of joint/coparcenary property

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANMOHAN GOPAL — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar, JJ. )…

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 6 – Devolution of interest in coparcenary property – In order to ascertain the shares of the heirs in the property of a deceased coparcener, the first step is to ascertain the share of the deceased himself in the coparcenary property and Explanation 1 to Section 6 provides a fictional expedient, namely, that his share is deemed to be the share in the property that would have been allotted to him if a partition had taken place immediately before his death

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DERHA — Appellant Vs. VISHAL AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 4494 of…

Held, a child of a marriage which is null and void under Section 11 of HMA is statutorily conferred with legitimacy – Where a voidable marriage has been annulled by a decree of nullity under Section 12, of HMA a child ‘begotten or conceived’ before the decree has been made, is deemed to be their legitimate child notwithstanding the decree, if the child would have been legitimate to the parties to the marriage if a decree of dissolution had been passed instead of a decree of nullity

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH REVANASIDDAPPA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. MALLIKARJUN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI., J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra,…

Hindu Succession Act 1956 – Essential ingredient of Section 14 subsection (1) is possession over the property – Possession being a prerequisite to sustain a claim under subsection (1) of Section 14 of the 1956 Act – Admittedly the plaintiff was never in possession of the property – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M. SIVADASAN (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. A. SOUDAMINI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar…

You missed

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120(b), 153(A) and 153(AA) – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Sections 13, 17, 18, 18(B), 38 and 39 – The case involves the Popular Front of India (PFI), an extremist Islamic organization accused of spreading extremist ideology, committing terrorist acts, raising funds for terrorism, and recruiting members in Tamil Nadu – The central issue is whether the respondents, accused of serious offenses under the IPC and UAPA, should be granted bail – The Union of India, represented by NIA, argues that the High Court failed to appreciate the gravity of the offenses and the prima facie evidence against the respondents – The defence contends that the allegations are vague and the evidence, particularly the statements of protected witnesses, is unreliable – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order granting bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offenses and the sufficiency of prima facie evidence – The Court found that the High Court did not properly consider the material evidence and recorded perverse findings regarding the involvement of the respondents in the alleged offences – The Court relied on the provisions of the UAPA and past judgments to establish the standards for granting bail in cases involving terrorism – The Supreme Court concluded that the respondents should not be released on bail, given the reasonable grounds to believe the accusations against them are prima facie true and the potential threat to national security.