Category: Joint Family Property

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…

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 29A – Coparcenary rights – Partition and separate possession of one-third in the plaint schedule property – Property is not available partition as of the date of coming into force of Section 29A – There is no prohibition to effect a partition otherwise than through an instrument in writing by duly complying with the requirement of law – Division may also be effected under a settlement or oral understanding

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH H. VASANTHI — Appellant Vs. A. SANTHA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.…

Joint Family Property – Gift deed – A Hindu father or any other managing member of a HUF has power to make a gift of ancestral property only for a ‘pious purpose’ and what is understood by the term ‘pious purpose’ is a gift for charitable and/or religious purpose. Therefore, a deed of gift in regard to the ancestral property executed ‘out of love and affection’ does not come within the scope of the term ‘pious purpose’

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K.C. LAXMANA — Appellant Vs. K.C. CHANDRAPPA GOWDA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari, JJ. ) Civil…

You missed

Temple Bye Laws — Oachira Parabrahma Temple — Ancient structure without a building or deity, governed by Bye-laws with three-tier elected committees — Appellants, elected Secretary and President, challenged two High Court orders (2020 and 2023) that removed their committee and appointed an unelected one under an Administrative Head, citing violations of the temple’s Bye-laws and customs —Legality of appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one contrary to the temple’s Bye-laws — Petitioner argues that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction and violated the temple’s governance structure by appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one without proper legal basis — The High Court’s actions were necessary for the efficient administration of the temple until a scheme could be framed and new elections held — The Supreme Court modified the High Court orders, appointing a new retired Judge as Administrative Head to conduct fair elections within four months, while directing all parties to cooperate — The Court emphasized the need to preserve temple properties and governance as per established customs and laws — The Supreme Court struck down the High Court’s order appointing an unelected committee, appointed a new Administrative Head to conduct elections, and directed all parties to cooperate, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the temple’s established governance structure and Bye-laws.