Category: Will & Succession

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…

Succession Act, 1956 – Section 63 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 68 – Property Dispute – The plaintiffs claimed that the property belonged to them through an oral partition among the sons of the original owner and was bequeathed to them by ‘A’ through a will – Supreme Court upheld the judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, finding that the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the oral partition and the will.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJENDHIRAN — Appellant Vs. MUTHAIAMMAL @ MUTHAYEE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

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…

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…

Will – Writ petitioner did not have any knowledge about the contents of the Will and the bequest made under the Will – Therefore, this appears to be a case where the writ petitioner is on a treasure hunt, if not a wild goose chase, in the hope that there exists a treasure and that if found, it will be hers – The Court cannot go to the aid of such a person.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH A. WILSON PRINCE — Appellant Vs. THE NAZAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. ) Special Leave…

Wills cannot be proved only on the basis of their age – the presumption under Section 90 as to the regularity of documents more than 30 years of age is inapplicable when it comes to proof of wills, which have to be proved in terms of Sections 63(c) of the Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ASHUTOSH SAMANTA (D) BY LRS. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SM. RANJAN BALA DASI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat…

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 8(a) – Estoppel – Mere spec successonis or expectation his conduct in transferring/releasing his rights for valuable consideration, would give rise to an estoppel – Effect of the estoppel cannot be warded off by persons claiming through the person whose conduct has generated the estoppel.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ELUMALAI @ VENKATESAN AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M. KAMALA AND OTHERS AND ETC. — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy,…

Faridkot Royal Family Property Dispute – Raja of Faridkot’s Estate Act, 1948 was not a valid enactment and would not be applicable for succession to the estate of the Ruler – No case was made out for the applicability of Rule of Primogeniture and succession based on said Rule – Order of High Court granting the majority share to Amrit Kaur and Deepinder Kaur is upheld.

CE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. RAJKUMARI AMRIT KAUR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit CJI., S. Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ.…

You missed