Category: Will & Succession

Interpretation of deeds – Release deed – Scope of – Principle for construction of instrument relinquishing the property – Effect of wide language employed in the instrument. It is a well settled rule of interpretation of deeds of release that however wide and general the covenant of release may be, its operation must be restricted to the rights which are in the contemplation or in controversy between the parties and would not cover or comprehend rights which are never in the minds of the parties at that time.

  AIR 1975 SC 895 : (1976) 1 SCC 299 : (1975) 7 UJ 303 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RAJAGOPAL PILLAI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. PAKKIAM AMMAL AND OTHERS…

Deceased executed will in favour of wife in respect of all his properties – She became owner of properties and after her death, her nephews would be owner of properties in equal shares – First appellate Court hold that wife was not competent to gift properties in favour of Gurdwara – After her death life estate ceased and plaintiffs would be entitled to recover possession and not entitled to mesne profits – Suit filed by plaintiffs decreed for recovery of possession.

  AIR 2006 SC 3282 : (2006) 4 CTC 773 : (2006) 8 JT 525 : (2006) 9 SCALE 83 : (2006) 8 SCC 75 : (2006) 5 SCR 799…

Custom–Karewa Marriage–In case of death of either of the sons or the co-widow, respective share in the property devolves upon the remaining widow, in proportion, by survivorship. Custom–Karewa Marriage–Daughter of the deceased, from earlier husband of the surviving widow, can not claim succession or inheritance or right of reversion in such property. Custom–Karewa Marriage–In matters of succession to deceased’s ancestral property, the widow under Karewa shall be preferred to the collaterals and daughter/s of that person. Custom–Where ‘Customary Law’ is not excluded by the Statutory Law, the former would prevail over the latter.

    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendaran Civil Appeal No. 12395 of 1996 [From the Final…

You missed

For best interest and welfare of the child are the paramount considerations when determining visitation rights A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — The paramount consideration when determining visitation rights is the best interest and welfare of the child — This principle takes precedence over the rights of the parents — The court emphasizes that a child’s health and well-being must not be compromised in the process of adjudicating parental rights. B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Both parents have a right to the care, company, and affection of their child — However, this right is not absolute and must be balanced with the need to protect the child’s welfare — In this case, the court acknowledges the father’s right to visit his daughter but ensures that these visits do not negatively impact the child. C. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Matrimonial disputes and serious allegations between parents should not impede a child’s right to the care and company of both parents — The court separates the child’s welfare from the conflict between the parents. D. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Visitation arrangements must not cause undue hardship to the child — The court modified the High Court’s order, which required the child to travel 300 kilometers every Sunday, as it was deemed detrimental to the child’s health and well-being. E. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — The location for visitation must be convenient and in the best interest of the child — The court changed the visitation location from Karur to Madurai, which is closer to the child’s residence, in order to prioritize the child’s comfort and convenience. F. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Supervised visitation may be necessary, especially for young children — The court directed that the father’s visits should occur in a public place, with the mother present (though at a distance), due to the child’s young age and unfamiliarity with the father.