HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956
As per the Dictionary meaning...
Succession means the action or process of inheriting a title, office, property
etc.
The Hindu Succession Act is broadly divided
between two events:
1. A
person dying Intestate- A person dies
without leaving a will
2. Person
dying Testamentary- A person dies leaving a will behind.
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is
governed if a person dies interstate.
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is a
codified law dealing with the matters of succession of a deceased dying
intestate and it applies to any person who is a Hindu by religion in any of its
forms or development.
The act also applies to any person who
is a Buddhist, Jain or Sikh by religion. The general rule of succession under
the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 for a male who dies intestate is that heirs
known as class I heirs succeed in preference to heirs in other classes.
Section
1
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 extends
to the whole of India.
Section 2- APPLICATION OF ACT
·
It is applicable to all
Hindus by Birth/Religion
·
It applies to all
Buddhist, Jain, and Sikhs
·
Does not apply to
Muslims, Parsis and Jews.
Section
2(2) - The HSA, 1956 is not applicable to
schedule tribes.
Section
2(3) - The expression Hindu used in this act
means as given by the provision in this section.
Section 3(1) - DEFINITION & INTERPRETATION
In this act, unless the context
otherwise requires:
(a) AGNATE:
One person is said to be an agnate of another if the two are related by blood
or adoption wholly through males. Thus the ascendants and descendants of a
Hindu in the male line of succession or those who come in the family by
adoption through male are Agnates.
(b) ALIYASANTANA LAW:
Means the system of law applicable to persons who, if this act would not have
passed, would have been governed by the Madras Aliyasantana Act, 1949, or by
the customary Aliyasantana Law with respect to the matter for which provision
is made in this act.
(c) COGNATE:
One person is said to be a cognate of another if the two are related by blood
or adoption but not wholly through males. In other words, wherever in the
relationship of one person with another, a female intervenes anywhere in the
line, that person is cognate to the other. In this context of the cognates, the
sex of the person is immaterial. It is set of the intermediate relation that
matters.
(d) The
expression CUSTOM and USAGE signify any rule which having
been continuously and uniformly observed for a long time, has obtained the
force of law among Hindus in any local area, tribe, community, group or family:
provided that the rule is certain and not unreasonable or opposed to any public
policy : and provided further that in the case of a rule applicable only to a family
it has not been discontinued by the family.
(e)
FULL
BLOOD, HALF BLOOD & UTERINE BLOOD
·
Two persons are said to
be related to each other by full blood when they are descended from a common
ancestor by the same wife and by half blood when they are descended from a
common ancestor but by different wives.
·
Two persons are said to
be related to each other by uterine blood when they are descended from a common
ancestress but by different husbands.
EXPLANATION:
·
Related means related
by legitimate Kinship.
·
Ancestor includes the
father and Ancestress the mother.
EXAMPLE:
Siblings- Having common parent’s means when father and the mother of two
persons are the same, they are said to be related to each other by Full Blood.
(f) HEIR
means any person, male or female, who is entitled to succeed to the property of
an intestate under this act. A person who is entitled to inherit the property
after the death of the intestate is known as heir.
(g) INTESTATE-
a person is deemed to die intestate in respect of property of which he or she
has not made a testamentary disposition capable of taking effect.
In simple words, when a
person die without making a will he is called an intestate.
PS: A will or testament is a document which
declares the intention of the owner of the property as to how his property is
to be distributed after his death.
SECTION 4- OVER RIDING EFFECT OF ACT
(a) Any
text, rule or interpretation of Hindu law or any custom or usage as part of
that law in force immediately before the commencement of this act shall cease
to have effect with respect to any matter for which provision is made in this
act.
(b) Any
other law in force immediately before the commencement of this act shall cease
to apply to Hindus in so far as it is inconsistent with any of the provisions
contained in this act.
SECTION
5
ACT NOT TO APPLY TO CERTAIN PARTIES
This act shall not apply to:
(i)
Any property succession
to which is regulated by the India Succession Act, 1925, by reason of the
provisions contained in section 21 of the special marriage act, 1954.
(ii)
Any estate which
descends to a single heir by the terms of any covenant or agreement entered
into by the ruler of any Indian state with the government of India or by the
terms of any enactment passed before the commencement of this act.
(iii)
The Valiamma Thampuran
Kovilagam Estate and the Palace fund administered by the Palace Administration
Board by reasons of the power conferred by proclamation dated 29th
June, 1949, promulgated by the Maharaja of Cochin.
SECTION
6
DEVOLUTION
OF INTETEST IN COPARCENARY PROPERTY
On and from the commencement of the
Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, in a joint Hindu family governed by the
Mitakshara Law, the daughter of a coparcener shall,
(a) By
birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as son,
(b) Have
the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had
been a son,
(c) Be
subject to the same liabilities in respect of the said coparcenary property as
that of a son, and any reference to a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be
deemed to include a reference to a daughter of a coparcener.
BACKGROUND:
Prior to the development of equality
rights in the world, the male heir was the preference. He was accorded with the
title, devolution and a succession of his parents’ estate and wealth to the
detriment of the daughters and sisters. More or less the society was
patriarchal, but in recent times, with the advent of Human Rights pressuring
the United Nations, women are accorded the same rights as men. This speaks of
equality and was adopted in the constitution of many countries. To create awareness of gender equality and
its specifics, it became fundamental human right which the government and the
citizens must uphold.
SECTION
6 OF THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT PRIOR TO ITS AMENDEMENT
The section made provision of the
devolution of interest in a coparcenary property of a person who died
intestate. The law provided that if a person dies intestate leaving only male
heirs, the coparcenary property will devolve accordingly to his male sons,
grandsons and great grandsons. Such devolution shall only be inherited by the
male heirs that are not more than three degrees to the coparcener.
This was the practise prior to the act
and thereafter. Women especially the wife of the coparcener was not entitled to
any share in the devolution of the property as she was not considered as a
direct bloodline of the deceased. A particular keynote of the section was that
male heirs such as sons are regarded as coparceners but daughters or female
heirs were not regarded as a coparcener.
This difference sparked the basis for an
amendment of the law.
SECTION
6 OF THE HINDU SUCCESSION (AMENDEMENT) ACT 2005
Section 6 of the amendment iterated that
the devolution of a coparcenary property is either by survivorship or by
succession. But it added, the property of a coparcener can only devolve by
survivorship if there are only male heirs. In this instance, the customs will
apply.
The devolution is by succession when the
coparcener has both male and female children, then, the devolution will be in
accordance with the law. This is only applicable when the devolution to the
female is in the same class prescribed by law. Such devolution must be equal
among all heirs of the deceased.
CHANGES
INTRODUCED BY THE AMENDEMENT
The changes introduced by section 6 of
the amendment act are as follows:
1. Both
sons and daughters have equal rights. As such, they both are coparceners by
birth irrespective of gender.
2. The
daughter of a coparcener has the same rights bestowed on the son of a
coparcener.
3. Just
as rights are equal, so also are the liabilities. The Mitakshara coparcener’s
liabilities as is applicable to the son are also applicable to the daughter.
4. The
females such as daughters, granddaughters, great granddaughters are also
entitled to bequeath their equal shares as coparceners just like the male
coparceners.
5. The
act is applicable to a Hindu who dies whether testamentary or intestate after
the commencement of the amendment act especially when his property interest pertains
to a joint Hindu Family property under the Mitakshara Law.
6. The
classification of the female heir to inherit is as follows:
·
The Daughter(s) -
female heir of a coparcener.
·
The Daughters –
Daughters’ son- the third degree of a coparcener that is the predeceased
daughter’s son
·
The Daughters son
daughter- the predeceased daughter of the pre deceased sons daughter.
·
The daughter’s
daughter’s daughter – the third degree of the female heir to the predeceased.
·
The sons daughters son
(the pre deceased great granddaughters which is only applicable if the male
heir or the grand is predeceased.
7. The
amended act removes the responsibility of debt repayment by sons, son’s son and
son’s son’s son for their father, grandfather and great grandfather. Therefore
upon the death of the latter, debt repayment does not transfer to the
descendants but ends with the debtor. This is applicable to both male and
female heirs.
IMPORTANT
CASE LAWS:
Bhaiya
Ramanuj Pratap Deo vs. Lalu Maheshanuj Pratap Deo & Ors (1981)
Yogendra
& Ors vs. Leelamma N. & Ors. (2009)
Prakash
vs. Phulawati (2015)
Vineeta
Sharma Vs Rakesh Sharma, 2020 (Landmark Judgement)
CONCLUSION:
Section 6 of the Hindu
Succession (amendment) Act 2005 speaks volume on gender equality and
inheritance. It also highlights the concept of survivorship and succession of
coparcenary property under the Mitakshara Law.
The main aim of the act
is to ensure that male heirs and female heirs are entitled to inheritance as a
coparcener under the law.
SECTION
7
DEVOLUTION
OF INTETEST IN THE PROPERTY OF A TARWARD, TAVAZHI, KUTUMBA, KAVARU OR ILLOM
(1) When
a Hindu to whom the marumakkattayam or nambudri Law would have applied if this
act had not been passed dies after the commencement of this act, having at the
time of his or her death, an interest in the property of a taward, tavazhi or
illom, as the case may be, his or her interest in the property shall devolve by
testamentary or intestate succession, as the case may be, under this act and
not according to the marumakkattayam or nambudri law.
(2) When
a Hindu, to whom the Aliyasantana law would have applied if this act would have
not been passed, dies after the commencement of this act, having at the time of
his or her death an undivided interest in the property of a kutumba or kavaru,
as the case may be, his or her interest in the property shall devolve by
testamentary or intestate succession, as the case may be, under this act and
not according to the Aliyasantana law.
(3) Notwithstanding
anything contained in Sub section(1), when a sthanamdar dies after the
commencement of this act, the sthanam property held by him shall devolve upon
the members of the family to which the sthanamdar belonged and the heirs of the
sthanamdar as if the sthanam property had been divided per capita immediately
before the death of the sthanamdar among himself and all the members of the
family then living, and the shares falling to the members of his family and the
heirs of the sthanamdar shall be held by them as their separate property.
EXPLANATION:
TAWAZHI-
it is a branch of Tarward. It has got a definite connotation in marumakkattayam
law. It is a branch of the Tarward and it is a distinct entity. It comprises
one of the females of the Tarward and it is a distinct entity. It is capable of
owning property and taking gifts of property.
TARWARD-
is the name given to a joint family consisting of males & females who have
all descended in the family line from a common ancestress.
KUTUMB:
family
For a better and simple understanding we
can say that for the purposes of these sub-sections, if a person who belongs to
the Tarward, Tavazhi, illom or kavaru community, if he dies intestate then his
property will be governed by the rule of succession provided in Sec.7 of the
Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
SECTION 8
GENERAL RULES OF SUCCESSION IN THE CASE OF
MALES:
The property of male Hindu
dying intestate shall devolve as per the provisions given below:-
·
Firstly amongst
the heirs specified in Class I of the schedule.
·
If no heirs of
class I exist than amongst the heirs of Class II.
·
If no heirs in
both classes then amongst agnates of the deceased.
·
Lastly, if no
agnates then amongst the cognates of the deceased.
Class I heir
– Son
– Son of Predeceased son.
– Son of Predeceased son of predeceased
son.
– Widow
– Widow of Predeceased son
– Widow of Predeceased son of
predeceased son
– Mother
– Daughter
– Son of Predeceased Daughter.
– Daughter of Predeceased
Daughter.
– Daughter of Predeceased Son
– Daughter of Predeceased Son
of Predeceased Son.
– Son of Predeceased Daughter
of Predeceased Daughter.
– Daughter of Predeceased
Daughter of Predeceased Daughter.
– Daughter of Predeceased Son
of Predeceased Daughter.
– Daughter of Predeceased
Daughter of Predeceased Son.
Class II heir
– Father
–
Son’s Daughter’s Son.
–
Son’s Daughter’s Daughter.
–
Brother.
–
Sister.
–
Daughter’s Son’s Son.
–
Daughter’s Son’s Daughter.
–
Daughter’s Daughter’s Son.
–
Daughter’s Daughter’s Daughter.
–
Brothers Son.
–
Sister’s Son.
–
Brothers Daughter.
–
Sister’s Daughter.
–
Father’s Father, Father’s Mother.
–
Father’s Widow.
–
Brothers Widow.
–
Father’s Brother.
–
Father’s Sister.
–
Mothers Father.
–
Mothers Mother.
–
Mother’s Brother.
–
Mothers Sister.
Agnates
Agnates of the deceased are
relatives from the parental side. ‘A Person is said to be an agnate of another
if the two are related to blood or adoption wholly through males’.
Cognates
Cognates of the deceased are
relatives through maternal side. ‘A person is said to be cognate of the
deceased if the two are relative by blood and adoption not wholly through the
males’.
EXPLANATION:
As per section 8, when a male Hindu dies intestate, then his property
will be divided among the persons listed above.
Applicability
of Section 8
Section 8 is applicable to
·
The property of a
male Hindu dying intestate.
·
Self acquired
property of Hindu Male.
·
Female property to
be reverted to Hindu heirs.
·
Property succeeded
from separated father is absolute property.
·
Property coming to
Hindu male as a gift.
·
Property coming to
a Hindu male from his collateral is an absolute property.
·
A sole surviving
Hindu getting property in partition will be considered his absolute property.
·
Property succeeded
under Section 8 will be an absolute property of the successor.
IMPORTANT CASE LAWS:
KIRPAL KAUR VS. JITENDER PAL SINGH AND OTHERS
(2015) AIR (SC) 2967
BAJAYA VS. GOPIKABAI 1978 AIR SC 0793
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, KANPUR VS.CHANDER SEN
AIR (SC) 1986, 0-1753.
MADANLAL PHULCHAND JAIN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
AIR (SC) 1992-0-1254
SECTION
9
ORDER
OF SUCCESSION AMONG HEIRS IN THE SCHEDULE
·
Among the heirs
specified in the schedule, those in class I shall take simultaneously and to
the exclusion of all other heirs,
·
Those in the first
entry in class II shall be preferred to those in the second entry,
·
Those in the second
entry shall be preferred to those in the third entry,
·
And so on in
succession.
IMPORTANT
CASE LAWS:
HANS
RAJ BASANT RAM VS.DHANWANT SINGH BALWANT SINGH, 8TH SEP. 1960
SHRI
SHYAM SUNDAR DALAL VS. SHRI VISHNU DAYAL, 29TH OCTOBER, 2009
HEMLAL
VS.9 RAVINDRA, 19TH MARCH, 2012
SECTION
10
DISTRIBUTION
OF PROPERTY AMONG HEIRS IN CLASS I OF THE SCHEDULE
The property of an intestate shall be
divided among the heirs in class I of the schedule in accordance with the
following rules:
1.
RULE
I
The intestate widow is entitled to one share. If there is more than one widow,
then all the widows together, will take one share each.
ILLUSTRATION:
An intestate dies leaving behind
·
One son
·
One daughter
·
One widow.
All three of them will have equal share in
the property of the intestate i.e. 1/3rd.
But if an intestate dies leaving behind
·
One son
·
One daughter
·
Two widows
Then in this case, both the widows will
share their share equally i.e. both the son and the daughter will get 1/3rd
share and both the widows will get 1/6th share. (Their 1/3rd
share being divided between them equally)
2.
RULE
II
The surviving
sons and daughters and the mother of the intestate shall each take one share.
Each of the surviving son, each of the surviving daughter, and the mother is
entitled to take one share; the division will be per capita.
ILLUSTRATION:
An intestate
dies leaving behind
·
Mother
·
Son
·
Daughter
·
Widow
All will be entitled equal share in the
property of the intestate i.e.1/4th of the share.
3.
RULE
III
The heirs in the branch of each
pre-deceased son or each pre-deceased daughter of the intestate shall take
between them one share. In other words we can say that the heirs of the
pre-deceased son or daughter take per stripe not per capita, meaning share in
the property will devolve branch wise and not per capita wise.
ILLUSTRATION:
If an intestate
dies leaving behind
·
One son
·
One daughter
Then both of
them will get equal share in the property of their father who has died
intestate.
Now further, the
son (of the dying intestate) has
·
One son
·
One daughter
·
Widow
Now, his half
share will be divided among these 3 survivors equally i.e. each will get 1/6th
share. (Half share inherited by their father, from his father, gets equally
divided between these three survivors)
And if the daughter of the dying intestate has
one son and one daughter further, then her half share will be divided between
two of them equally.
4.
RULE
IV
The distribution of the
share referred to in rule 3:
(a) Among
the heirs in the branch of the pre-deceased son shall be so made that his widow
(or widow together) and the surviving sons and daughters get equal portions;
and the branch of his pre-deceased sons gets the same portion.
(b) Among
the heirs in the branch of the pre-deceased daughter shall be so made that the
surviving sons and daughters get equal portions.
This is called DOCTRINE OF
REPRESENTATION- if the father dies, and he leaves his property for his son,
but if the son is also not alive – then his son’s representatives will get his
share.
EXAMPLE: P dies leaving behind a son S
and a grandson SS. By the application of the doctrine of representation, SS
representing his father will be an heir and will take the same share which his
father would have taken, if he would have been alive.
IMPORTANT
CASE LAWS:
SMT.PARU
BALA MAHATALN AND ANR. VS.SMT. BIJUBALA MAHATALN AND ORS. II(2006)DMC24
SOMTHIM
VEERABHADRA RAO AND ANR.VS.DUGGIRALA LAKSHMI DEVI AIR1965AP367
DR.T.N.
RAGHUNATH AND SMT.VS. LAKESIDE MEDICAL CENTRE PRIVATE (2007)137COMPCAS741
SECTION
11
DISTRIBUTION
OF PROPERTY AMONG HEIRS IN CLASS II OF THE SCHEDULE
The property of an intestate shall be
divided between the heirs specified in any one entry in class II of the
schedule so that they share equally.
ORDER OF SUCCESSION:
Those in the first entry in class II shall be preferred to those in the second
entry and those in the second entry shall be preferred to those in the third
entry.
PS: Class II heirs have been already
mentioned in Sec.8, kindly refer it.
EXAMPLE: if father is alive (of the
deceased) and he falls in the first entry- then only he will get the share,
nobody else will get it.
Class II heirs doesn’t get the property
simultaneously, they will get the property only according to the entries.
IMPORTANT
CASE LAWS:
THANTHONI
NAICKER VS.KUPPAMMAL AND ORS. AIR (1973)
MAD 274
RAMUBAI
VS.JIYARAM SHARMA AIR 1964 BOM 96
WOMAN
GOVIND SHINDORE AND ORS. VS.GOPAL BABURAO CHAKRADEO AND ORS. AIR1984BOM208
SECTION
12
ORDER
OF SUCCESSION AMONG AGNATES AND COGNATES
As per the HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956,
where a Hindu male dies intestate his property devolves upon his heirs of Class
I mentioned in the schedule to the act. If there is no class I successor, then
the property devolves upon class II heirs of the deceased. If there are no
class II heirs, then the property devolves upon the agnates and the cognates
among whom agnates are preferred upon cognates.
(Please refer the earlier notes, Section
3 for the definition of Agnates &
Cognates)
The order of succession among agnates or
cognates as the case may be, shall be determined in accordance with the rules
of preference laid down hereunder:
RULE
1- of two heirs, the one who has fewer or
no degrees of ascent is preferred.
RULE
II- where the number of degrees of ascent
is the same or none, that heir is preferred who has fewer or no degrees of
descent.
RULE
III- where neither heir is entitled to be
preferred to the other under Rule I or Rule II, they take simultaneously.
EXPLANATION:
RULE
I: This rule says that of two heirs, the
one who has fewer or no degrees of ascent is preferred means that an heir who
claims as the descent of the Hindu male who has died intestate or the one who
is in nearer line to him is to be preferred to one who claims in a remoter
line.
Example: a son’s son’s son being a
descendant in the line of the deceased is to be preferred to brother’s son’s
son who comes in father’s line which is remoter than one’s own line.
The rule lays down merely that a
relation who traces his relationship to the deceased either in the deceased’s
own line or in the line of a nearer ancestor is to be preferred to one who
traces his relationship in the line of a remote ancestor in the male line.
RULE
II: This rule lays down that in the case
of agnates or cognates, where the number of degrees of ascent is the same or
none, that heir is preferred who has fewer or no degrees of descent. Thus a
Father’s Brother’s Son being nearer than Father’s Brother’s Grandson is
preferred to the latter though both of them are in the same line, namely the
line starting from Father’s Father.
RULE
III: Where the heirs are equal in the
descent in the same line they take simultaneously. Father’s Father’s Father and
Father’s Father’s Mother take equally being in the same line; so also Son’s
Son’s son’s Daughter and Son’s Son’s Son’s Son take equally both being in the
line of the deceased and neither being nearer in descent.
In the application of these rules, there
is no discrimination on the ground of sex. It should however not be forgotten
that a relation who is an Agnate though in a remote degree of ascent or descent
or of both is to be preferred over a Cognate who may be in a nearer degree or
nearer line or both.
IMPORTANT CASE LAWS:
SMT.
BHAGYAMMA AND ORS.VS.T.L.BASAVARAJU AND ORS. ILR2006KAR277
MILKHI
RAM VS.MILKHI RAM AIR1996HP116
BARU
& ORS.VS.RATIA (1996)113PLR477
SECTION
13
COMPUTATION
OF DEGREES
1. For
the purpose of determining the order of succession among agnates or cognates,
relationship will be reckoned from the intestate to the heirs in terms of
degrees of ascent or degrees of descent or both, as the case may be.
2. Degrees
of ascent and degrees of descent shall be computed inclusive of the intestate.
3. Every
generation constitutes a degree either ascending or descending.
Section 13 lays down the rules for
computation of relationship between the intestate and his agnates and cognates
heirs. The relationship is traced from the intestate to the heir in terms of
degrees of relationship with the intestate as the starting point. There is no
discrimination or preference between male and female heirs.
EXAMPLE:
The heir to be considered is the father’s Mother’s Father of the intestate.
Hence there is no degree of descent but there are four degrees of ascent
represented by:
·
The Intestate
·
The Intestate’s Father
·
That father’s Mother
and
·
That Mother’s Father
The second rule states that the
computation of the degrees of ascent or descent is to be made inclusive of the
intestate. The relationship is to be traced from the propositus (is the person
immediately concerned/ the person from whom a line of descent is traced) on
terms of degrees with a propositus as terminus a quo i.e. the first
degree.
·
EXAMPLE:
the heir to be considered is Son’s daughter’s Son’s Daughter of the intestate.
Hence there is no degree of ascent but there are five degrees of descent
represented by:
·
The Intestate
·
The intestate’s Son
·
That Son’s Daughter
·
That Daughter’s son and
·
That son’s Daughter.
However, the order of succession among
agnates and cognates is not determined merely by the total number of degrees of
ascent and descent. It is subject to and regulated by Section 12 of the act.
EXAMPLE:
The heir to be considered is the Mother’s Father’s Sister’s son (i.e. the
Mother’s Father’s Father’s Daughter’s son) of the intestate. He has four
degrees of ascent represented in order by:
·
The Intestate
·
The Interstate’s Mother
·
That Mother’s Father
and
·
That Father’s Father
and two degrees of descent i.e.
·
The Daughter of the
common Ancestor and
·
Her son (the heir).
What is to be remembered is that when
degrees, both of ascent and descent, are to be computed in case of collateral,
the degrees of ascent computed from the intestate are inclusive of him, but in
counting the degrees of descent from the ancestor, only generations of descent
are computed, that is, the ancestor does not constitute a degree of descent.
SECTION
14
PROPERTY
OF A FEMALE HINDU TO BE HER ABSOLUTE PROPERTY
BACKGROUND:
To understand this section, we first
need to understand, the need to include this section in the act. Before the commencement of the Hindu
Succession Act,1956 a female Hindu possessed two kinds of property:
·
Stridhan
·
Hindu Women’s estate
Over the Stridhan she had full ownership
and on her death, it developed on her heirs. Even as regards property in which
she acquired Hindu Women’s Estate, her position was that of the owner but her
power of alienation was limited and on her death, the property devolved on the
next heir of the last full owner and not on her heir. The Hindu Women’s Limited
Estate is now abolished and any property possessed by a female Hindu howsoever
acquired is now held by her as absolute property and she has full power to deal
with or dispose of it by will as she likes.
Section 14 of the act, brought about
fundamental and radical changes in the position and status of the Hindu
Females. The reason for including this provision was to ensure to women
equality of status and of opportunity with men in relation to the title to and
enjoyment of the property.
The provisions laid down in section 14
of the act are as follows:
(1.) Any
property possessed by a Female Hind, whether acquired before or after the
commencement of this act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as
a limited owner.
EXPLANATION:
In this sub-section Property includes both Movable and immovable Property
acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a partition, or in
lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance, or by gift from any person,
whether a relative or not, before, at or after her marriage, or by her own
skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription, or in any other manner
whatsoever and also any such property held by her as Stridhan immediately
before the commencement of this act.
(2.) Nothing
contained in Sub-Section (1) shall apply to any property acquired by way of
gift or under a will or any other instrument or under a decree or order of a
civil court or under an award where the terms of the gift, will or other
instrument or the decree, order or award prescribe a restricted estate in such
property.
EXPLANATION:
According to sub-section(2) the female Hindu does not become absolute owner of
the property acquired by gift, will or any other instrument, decree or order of
a civil court or an award if such gift, will or instrument, decree, order or
award gives her only restricted right.
According to Sec.14 (2), the owner of a
property is competent to confer a limited estate in favour of any Hindu female
voluntarily and such limited estate would not mature into an absolute one. The
reason is that the owner has a liberty to make a disposition of the property in
accordance with his wishes.
However where even under a will, the
property was given to a Hindu female in lieu of her Pre-existing maintenance
rights, such property notwithstanding the fact that it was bequeathed to her as
a limited estate, would mature into an absolute ownership.
IMPORTANT
CASE LAWS:
PUNITHAVALLI
VS.RAMALINGAM, AIR 1970SC 1730
RADHA
RANI BHARGAVA VS.HANUMAN PRASAD BHARGAVA, AIR 1966 SC 216
S.C.
SHUKLA VS. MAHARAJ, AIR 1985 SC 905
PRATAP
SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA AIR 1985 SC 1694
PS: STRIDAN-As defined by Yagnyabalkya is:
1) The wealth
received by the women from her father, mother, husband and brother out of love
and affection.
2) The wealth
given to the bride by her maternal uncle and relative etc. at the time of
marriage in presence of nuptial fire.
3) The wealth that
is given by the husband at the time of second marriage to satisfy his previous
wife.
4) The wealth
given to the bride by the cousins and relatives of her parents.
5) The wealth
given to the bride from the side of bride-groom prior to marriage towards duty.
6) The wealth
given to the newly wedded bride at the time of her departure from her father's
house.
7) The wealth received
by the bride in her matrimonial house after the marriage.
8) The wealth
given to the new daughter-in-law by the father-in law or mother-in-law out of
love and affection.
9) The wealth received by married or unmarried
daughter in her parental house from her brother or parent.
SECTION
15
GENERAL
RULE OF SUCCESSION IN THE CASE OF FEMALE HINDUS
(1) The
property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules
set out in section 16-
·
Firstly, upon the sons
and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and
the husband;
·
Secondly, upon the
heirs of the husband;
·
Thirdly, upon the
mother and father;
·
Fourthly, upon the
heirs of the father; and
·
Lastly, upon the heirs
of the mother.
(2) Notwithstanding,
anything contained in Sub-section(1)-
·
Any property inherited
by a female Hindu from her father or mother shall devolve, in the absence of
any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased
son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred in sub- section(1) in the
order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the father; and
·
Any property inherited
by a female Hindu from her husband or from her father-in-law shall devolve, in
the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased(including the children of
any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in
sub-section(1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the
husband.
·
Now as far as the EXPLANATION is concerned- the
sub-section (1) is very clear as it states the order in which the property will
b e inherited upon a female Hindu dying intestate.
If we talk about the two exceptions,
stated in sub-section (2), it clearly says that-
·
If a female Hindu dies
without leaving any issue, then the property inherited by her from her father
or mother will not devolve according to the rules laid down in the five entries
as stated earlier, but upon the heirs of father.
·
Similarly, in respect
of the property inherited by her from her husband or from her father-in law, the
same will not devolve according to the general rule, but upon the heirs of the
husband.
In short we can say that it is the
source which is more important from which the property was inherited by the
female, and not the purpose of devolution of her property.
IMPORTANT
CASE LAWS:
INCOME
TAX OFFICER VS.SMT.SHARDA SESHADRI (1986) 161TD615 (DELHI)
R.MEENAKSHI
AMMAL VS.VELUSAMY AIR2003MAD35
SHRI
VASANT MAHADEV TIKEKAR AND ORS. VS.STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 2010(112)
BOMLR1119
SECTION 16
ORDER OF SUCCESSION AND MANNER OF
DISTRIBUTION AMONG HEIRS OF A FEMALE HINDU:
The order of succession among the heirs referred to in section 15 shall
be, and the distribution of the intestates property among those heirs shall
take place, according to the following rules, namely:
Rule 1. Among the heirs specified in sub-section (1) of
section 15, those in one entry shall be preferred to those in any succeeding
entry, and those included in the same entry shall take simultaneously.
Rule 2. If any son or daughter of the intestate had
pre-deceased the intestate leaving his or her own children alive at the time of
the intestates death, the children of such son or daughter shall take between
them the share which such son or daughter would have taken if living at the
intestates death.
Rule 3. The devolution of the property of the intestate
on the heirs referred to in clauses (b), (d) and (e) of sub-section (1) and in
sub-section (2) of section 15 shall be in the same order and according to the
same rules as would have applied if the property had been the fathers or the
mothers or the husbands as the case may be, and such person had died intestate
in respect thereof immediately after the intestates death.
EXPLANATION:
Section
16 of HSA, 1956 basically provides certain rules which needs to be followed
when there is distribution of
the intestates property among heirs as mentioned under Section 15 of the said
Act. Section 16 is for the applicability of section
15, that is, the sequence mentioned in section 15 should be followed for
distribution of the property to heirs.
Example:
The Surviving heirs are a son and husband’s brother. The son is mentioned in
the first entry (a) and heirs of brother are mentioned in the second entry (b).
Section 16 lays down that those in one entry shall be preferred to those in any
succeeding entry. The son gets whole estate to the exclusion of the husband’s
heirs (Husband’s brother).
IMPORTANT
CASE LAWS:
RAMESHWARI DEVI
VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS., 2000 (2) ALD 42 (SC)
P.N.UNNI VS. BABY JOHN,MFA No. 442 of 1997(A)
G.
JAYAKUMAR VS. R. RAMARATNAM, AIR1972Mad212
SECTION 17
SPECIAL PROVISIONS RESPECTING
PERSONS GOVERNED BY MARUMAKKATTAYAM AND AIYASANTANA LAWS:
The provisions of sections 8, 10, 15 and 23 shall
have effect in relation to persons who would have been governed by the marumakkattayam law
oraliyasantana law if this Act had not been passed as if
(i) for sub-clauses (c) and
(d) of section 8, the following had been substituted, namely:
(c) thirdly, if there is no
heir of any of the two classes, then upon his relatives, whether agnates or
cognates;
(ii) for clauses (a) to (e)
of sub-section (1) of section 15, the following had been substituted, namely:
(a) firstly, upon the sons
and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and
the mother;
(b) secondly, upon the
father and the husband;
(c) thirdly, upon the heirs
of the mother;
(d) fourthly, upon the
heirs of the father; and
(e) lastly, upon the heirs
of the husband;
(iii) clause (a) of
sub-section (2) of section 15 had been omitted;
(iv) section 23 had been
omitted.
Section 17 can easily be
understood as the
provisions of Section 17 of the Hindu Succession Act areapplicable to the
separate or self-acquired property of a person governed underMarumakkattayam or
Aliyasantana law, subject to the modifications contained in this section. This
section basically lays down certain
special provisions of succession with regards to those persons who are governed
by Marumakkattayam and Aliyasantana law.
IMPORTANT CASE
LAWS:
SUNDARI VS. LAXMI, AIR 1980 SC198
M.D.VARADARAJAN
VS. G. SURESHKUMAR, RFA No. 605 of 2004(A)
CHELLAMMA
KAMALAMMA AND ORS. VS. NARAYANA PILLAI PRABHAKARAN NAIR, AIR 1993 Ker 146
SECTION 18
FULL BLOOD PREFERRED TO HALF BLOOD:
Heirs related to an intestate by full blood shall be preferred to heirs
related by half blood, if the nature of the relationship is the same in every
other respect.
If we look at the explanatory part, Section 18 of Hindu Succession Act
provides general
provisions relating to succession. According to Section 18 full blood is
preferred to half blood. In other words we can say that heirs descending from
the common ancestors by the same wife are to be preferred to those who are
descended from the common ancestors but by different wives. Thus the full
sister’s daughter shall be preferred over a half brother’s son. (Siblings
children are given importance over step brother & sister’s children)
IMPORTANT CASE
LAWS:
RAM SINGARI DEVI AND ORS. VS. GOVIND THAKUR AND
ORS., AIR 2006 Pat 169
WOMAN GOVIND SHINDORE AND ORS. VS. GOPAL BABURAO CHAKRADEO
AND ORS., AIR 1984 Bom 208
DEEP NARAYAN SINGH AND ORS. VS. SARJAN SINGH AND
ORS., (2002) 3 CALLT 239 HC
SECTION 19
MODE OF SUCCESSION OF TWO OR MORE HEIRS:
If two or more heirs succeed together to the property of an intestate,
they shall take the property,
(a) save as otherwise
expressly provided in this Act, per capita and not per
stripes; and
(b) as tenants-in-common
and not as joint tenants.
This Section basically provides with the way of
succession when there are two or more heirs. The section lays down the general rule of distribution that
two or more heirs of a male or female intestate, who succeed together, shall
take his or her share individually and not branch wise. The heirs shall not
succeed the estate of the deceased jointly but take their individual shares
simultaneously.
IMPORTANT CASE
LAWS:
RAKESH JAIN
VS. SURESH KUMAR KOHLI AND ANR., CM (M) 880/2012
AMAL
KRISHNA ADITYA VS. GANESH CHANDRA DAS, AIR 1998 Cal 221
MST.
SURAYYA BEGUM VS. MOHD. USMAN AND ORS., 1991 SCR (2) 517
SECTION 20
RIGHT OF CHILD IN WOMB:
A child who was in the womb at the time of the death of an intestate and
who is subsequently born alive shall have the same right to inherit to the
intestate as if he or she had been born before the death of the intestate, and
the inheritance shall be deemed to vest in such a case with effect from the date
of the death of the intestate.
Section 20 of
the Hindu Succession Act provides the right of a child in womb. It lays down
that a child in womb at the time of intestate's death has been given the right
to share the property of the deceased if it had been born alive subsequently. The inheritance
in such a case shall be deemed to vest in the child with effect from the date
of the death of intestate. If however a child is born he or she will divest the
shares allotted to other heirs and there will have to lie a re-adjustment of
the shares.
If however, the
other heirs upon whom the property might have vested belong to Class II of the
schedule, then they will be completely divested and excluded from their shares
and thereafter born child whether a son or a daughter shall alone inherit the
property.
IMPORTANT CASE
LAWS:
N.
RAMACHANDRAN VS. E. VARADAJAN AND YAMUNARANI, (2007) 4 MLJ 993
PRIYESH
VASUDEVAN VS. SHAMEENA, 2005 (4) KLT 1003
MAHIMA
SURI MUKHERJEE VS. STATE, Ca No. 15/15 Page No. 1 Of 2 on 20
SECTION 21
PRESUMPTION IN CASES OF SIMULTANEOUS DEATHS:
Where two persons have died in circumstances
rendering it uncertain whether either of them, and if so which, survived the
other, then, for all purposes, affecting succession to property, it shall be
presumed, until the contrary is proved, that the younger survived the elder.
The section resolves the dispute in
those cases where members of the same family perish in a common calamity in
circumstances rendering it uncertain which of them survived the other or
others. According to this section, it provides the presumption that the younger
will be deemed to have survived the elder.
EXAMPLE: A
father H, and a son S die in plane crash. In this case S being younger to H is
resumed to have survived H.
Looking at another example, a testator’s wife who was
younger to him died of gunshot wound; it was held that the wife should be
presumed to have survived the husband testator.
IMPORTANT CASE LAWS:
JayantilalMansukhlal And Anr. vs Mehta
Chhanalal Ambalal, AIR 1968 Guj 212
Damera Madhava Vidhyardhi vs R.Siva Kumar, A.S.No.1530 of 2001
Smt. Bishan Devi Khanna vs Pirthi Singh,
Dhillon, on 25 July, 1962
SECTION 22
PREFERENTIAL RIGHT TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY IN CERTAIN
CASES:
(1) Where, after the commencement of this Act, an
interest in any immovable property of an intestate, or in any business carried
on by him or her, whether solely or in conjunction with others, devolves upon
two or more heirs specified in class I of the Schedule, and any one of such
heirs proposes to transfer his or her interest in the property or business, the
other heirs shall have a preferential right to acquire the interest proposed to
be transferred.
(2)
The consideration for which any interest in the property of the deceased may be
transferred under this section shall, in the absence of any agreement between
the parties, be determined by the Court on application being made to it in this
behalf, and if any person proposing to acquire the interest is not willing to
acquire it for the consideration so determined, such person shall be liable to
pay all costs of or incident to the application.
(3) If
there are two or more heirs specified in class I of the Schedule proposing to
acquire any interest under this section, that heir who offers the highest
consideration for the transfer shall be preferred.
Explanation .In this section, Court means the Court within the limits of whose
jurisdiction the immovable property is situated or the business is carried on,
and includes any other Court which the State Government may, by notification in
the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf.
Section
22 of Hindu Succession Act, provides that when an interest for any immovable
property of an intestate regresses upon two or more heirs, and any one of such
heirs proposes to sell his interest (property) or business, the other heirs
shall have a preferential right to obtain the interest proposed to be
transferred. The Section also talks about the situation when there are 2 or
more heirs proposing to obtain the interest then in such case the heir who
offers the highest consideration shall be preferred.
In the case of Nagannal vs Nanjammal, 13
(1970) MLJ 358, the Madras High Court said Section 22 embodies two-fold
aspects of the right of preemption, that is:
1.
The primary and substantive right to have an offer made, and
2.
The secondary or remedial right of the co-heirs if the property is sold
without being first offered to him to take it from the purchaser. The right is
personal and is not attached to the property.
IMPORTANT CASE LAWS:
Madan
Lal And Anr. vs Braham Dass Alias Brahmu And Anr., AIR 2008 HP 71
Smt.
Ammajamma vs Smt. Mahadevamma And Anr., ILR 1996 KAR 3499
Ashutosh
Chaturvedi vs Prano Devi @ Parani Devi &Ors, Appeal (civil) 2893 of 2008
SECTION 23
SPECIAL
PROVISION RESPECTING DWELLING HOUSES:
Section 23 has been
omitted by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. But, before its omission
it talked about certain special provisions for dwelling houses. Before the
amended act of 2005 came into force, the female heir of the joint Hindu family
was not entitled to ask for partition of the dwelling house occupied by joint
Hindu family unlike the male heirs who could choose to divide their respective
shares.
But after this act
was omitted and the amended act of 2005, came into force, a female heir can
also ask for a share in the dwelling property of the Joint Hindu Family as
according to section 6 of the Amending act, her status is also now that of a
coparcener.
IMPORTANT CASE LAWS:
Narayanan vs Meenakshi, AIR 2006 Ker 143
T.P.Vadivelu vs S.Padmavathy, S.A.No.1403 of 2005
Ramanlal vs Smt. Heeramani And Ors.,
2002 (5) WLC 846
SECTION 24
CERTAIN WIDOWS REMARRYING MAY NOT INHERIT AS
WIDOWS:
Section 24(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 seeks to
prevent certain sections of the widows from inheriting property of the
intestate if she has remarried. It reads as follows:
Any heir who is related to an intestate as the widow of a
pre-deceased son, the widow of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased son or the
widow of a brother shall not be entitled to succeed to the property of the
intestate as such widow, if on the date the succession opens, she has
re-married.
The reason is that a widow succeeds as the surviving half
of her husband, and she ceases to be so by her re-marriage.
But this section has now been repealed from the Hindu
Succession Act by the amendment of 2005 and is being looked upon as a
progressive measure to end the gender inequalities in regards to the
inheritance of property.
IMPORTANT CASE LAWS:
Jagdish Mahton vs Mohammad Elahi And
Ors., AIR 1973 Pat 170
Mr. Pushkar Navnitlal Shah vs Mrs. Rakhi
Pushkar Shah, AIR 2007 Guj 5
Thankam vs Rajan, AIR 1999 Kerala 62
SECTION 25
MURDERER DISQUALIFIED:
A
person who commits murder or abets the commission of murder shall be
disqualified from inheriting the property of the person murdered, or any other
property in furtherance of the succession to which he or she committed or
abetted the commission of the murder.
The
section has the effect of lying down that a person who commits murder or abets
the commission of murder is disqualified from inheriting:
1.
The property of
the person murdered
2.
Any other property
he may become entitled to succeed by reason of furtherance of succession
resulting from the murder.
The disqualification will
apply if it is established that the person to be disqualified had committed or
abetted the murder. It is not compulsory for the application of this section
that the person disqualified should have been convicted of murder or abetment
of murder.
In Smt. Kasturi
Devi vs D.D.C., AIR 1976 SC 2105 case, it was held by the Privy Council
that upon principles of equity, justice and good conscience the murderer should
be disqualified from succeeding to the estate of the person whom he has
murdered and he would not be regarded as a fresh stock of descent but should be
regarded as non-existent.
IMPORTANT CASE LAWS:
Ram Chatterjee AndAnr. vs Smt. Tapati Mukherjee And
Anr., (2002) 3 CALLT 208 HC
NannepuneniSeetharamaiah vs NannepuneniRamakrishnaiah, AIR
1970 AP 407
Kuppu Alias Kuppammal vs KuppuswamiMandiri And Ors., (1984) 2
MLJ 224
SECTION 26
CONVERTS DESCENDANTS DISQUALIFIED:
Where, before or after the commencement of this
Act, a Hindu has ceased or ceases to be a Hindu by conversion to another
religion, children born to him or her after such conversion and their
descendants shall be disqualified from inheriting the property of any of their
Hindu relatives, unless such children or descendants are Hindus at the time
when the succession opens.
Section 26 of the Hindu Succession Act specified that if
a Hindu converts to another religion and ceases to be a Hindu, then the
children born after this conversion to him and their descendants will not
qualify from inheriting the property of any Hindu relatives, unless they are Hindus at the time when the
succession opens.
But this section creates no impact on the convert’s
right to inherit property from her Hindu relatives and shall only apply to the
children born after such conversion and their descendants.
Example: If ‘H’ has two sons namely ‘F’ and ‘G’ and they
both converts to Christianity during the life time of ‘H’. Now on the death of
‘H’, ‘G’ will be entitled to claim a share along with ‘F’. But, if ‘G’ dies
after conversion during the lifetime of ‘H’ leaving behind him his two sons ‘S’
and ‘Q’, who are born to him after conversion, ‘S’ and ‘Q’ would be excluded
from inheritance.
IMPORTANT CASE LAWS:
BalchandJairamdasLalwani vs Nazneen Khalid Qureshi, APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 1175 OF 2014
V. Sampathkumari (Minor) vs M. Lakshmi
Ammal And Ors., (1962) 2 MLJ 464
LaxmibaiNagappaMatiwadar And Ors. vs
LimbabaiNagappaMatiwadar, AIR 1983 Bom 222
SECTION 27
SUCCESSION WHEN HEIR
DISQUALIFIED:
If any person is disqualified from inheriting any
property under this Act, it shall devolve as if such person had died before the
intestate.
Section 27 of the Hindu Succession Act provides for the
succession when heir is disqualified. It makes
it quite clear that if any person is disqualified from inheriting any property
under this Act, it shall be deemed as if such person had died before the
intestate.
IMPORTANT CASE LAWS:
Swami Shradanand vs MrsGauhar Taj Namazie, REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1487/2003
NachimuthuGounder (Deceased) vs Umamaheshwari, S. A.No.412 of 2015
Pratibha Rani vs Suraj Kumar &Anr.,
1985 AIR 628
SECTION 28
DISEASE, DEFECT, ETC, NOT TO DISQUALIFY:
No person shall be disqualified from succeeding to
any property on the ground of any disease, defect or deformity, or save as
provided in this Act, on any ground whatsoever.
Section 28 of the Hindu Succession Act makes it clear in
its terms that any individual suffering from any kind of disease, defect or
deformity shall not be disqualified from succeeding any property.
Previously, there were certain sort of rules which
provided disinheritance or disqualifications such as lunacy; idiocy etc.
including the unchastity of the widow and disqualified her from inheritance.
But now, such disqualifications, diseases, defect or
deformity is no ground for exclusion from inheritance.
IMPORTANT CASE LAWS:
Krishnamma And Anr. vs P. Subramanyam
Reddy And Anr., 2007 (6) ALD 805
Kuppu Alias Kuppammal vs
KuppuswamiMandiri And Ors., (1984) 2 MLJ 224
SECTION 29
FAILURE OF HEIRS:
If an intestate has left no heir qualified to
succeed to his or her property in accordance with the provisions of this Act,
such property shall devolve on the Government; and the Government shall take
the property subject to all the obligations and liabilities to which an heir
would have been subject.
This Section states that an intestate is
left with no heir to succeed the property, then such property shall delegate on
to the government.
The use of the term ‘failure’ means a
total or absolute absence of heir to the person dying intestate.
This Section provides the principle of
escheat which postulates that where a person has died intestate and that no
heir is left behind to succeed then such property devolves on the government.
The government takes it subject to all its obligations and liabilities.
Also, it is well settled that when a
claim of escheat is put forward by the government, the onus lies heavily on the
appellant to prove the absence of any heir of the respondent anywhere in the
world.
Further, before the plea of escheat can
be entertained, there must be a public notice given by the Government so that
if there is any claimant anywhere in the country or for that matter in the
world, he may come forward to contest the claim of the estate.
IMPORTANT CASE LAWS:
AlameluAmmal, Rathinam, Balaji @... vs
TamizhChelvi, Minor Krishna Devi, (2004) 3 MLJ 620
Smt. Gayabai wd/o
SakharamJambhulkar v/s Gopal SakharamJambhulkar& Another,
2008 (110) Bom L R 1195
Dera Baba Dargah Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Anr., Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2536 of 2012
S.Seshachalam vs S.Deenadayalan, A.S.No.272 of 2008
DamalankaGangaraju And Ors. vs Nandipati
Vijaya Lakshmi And Ors., 2007 (4) ALD 694
The Income-Tax Officer vs Shri P.C.
Ramakrishna, Huf, 2007 108 ITD 251 Chennai
SECTION 30
TESTAMENTARY SUCCESSION
Any Hindu may dispose of by will or other
testamentary disposition any property, which is capable of being
so [disposed of by him or by her], in accordance with the provisions of
the Indian Succession Act, 1925, or any other law for the time being in force
and applicable to Hindus.
Explanation .The interest of a male Hindu in a Mitakshara coparcenary property or
the interest of a member of a tarwad, tavazhi, illom, kutumba or kavaru in
the property of the tarwad, tavazhi, illom, kutumba or kavaru shall,
notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time
being in force, be deemed to be property capable of being disposed of by him or
by her within the meaning of this [section].
Section
30 talks about the Testamentary Succession.
Under
section 30 of the Act, the replacement of words from “disposed by him” to
“disposed by him or by her” was done, so as to make it gender-neutral which was
the motive of this amendment.
As per
Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, a Hindu may discard any property
by will or other testamentary disposition, which is fit for being discarded by
him/her, as per the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 or any other
law.
Although,
this creates no restriction under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 or the Indian
Succession Act, 1925, on the persons to whom a Hindu may hand down his/her
self-obtained and self-claimed properties over which she/he has fulldisposing
power.
IMPORTANT CASE LAWS:
Shivadeviamma By Lrs. And Ors. vs Sumanji And Ors., AIR 1973
Kant 299
Sundari And Ors vs Laxmi And Ors., 1980 AIR 198
RavuBabajiBerad vs Maruthi Krishna Naik, ILR 1992 KAR 877
Kartick Das vs Sri Kamal Ghosh And Ors., (2004) 1 CALLT 600
HC
No comments:
Post a Comment