Whether the exclusion from inheritance would cover enlargement of interest by survivorship, in the light of Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act?
Section 25 read with Section 27 is that a murderer is totally disqualified to succeed to the estate of the deceased. That means that a person who is guilty of committing the murder cannot be treated to have any relationship whatsoever with the deceased's estate.
What is the validity of marriage when there is a lack of conclusive proof?
Whether Will in the suit was rightly alleged to be legal?
A strong presumption in favour of validity of marriage and legitimacy of its child recognises the marriage for all persons concerned. Law presumes in favour of marriage and against concubinage, when man and woman have cohabited continuously for long time. However, presumption can be rebutted by leading unimpeachable evidence.
Execution of document does not mean mechanical act of signing document or getting it signed, but intelligent appreciation of contents of document and signing it in token of acceptance of those contents. Proof of Will stands in higher degree in comparison to other documents.
Whether the High Court correctly interpreted the terms of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (the "Act") in reaching the decision that the widow of the deceased P. Venkata Subba Rao obtained an absolute interest in the property via the operation of Section 14 of the Act?
The wide definition of "possessed by" in Section 14(1) may entail that a person is the legal owner of a piece of property even though they do not have actual possession of it. Section 14(1) of the 1956 Act states that if a widow was granted a share of the marital estate in a preliminary judgement before or at the time of the Act's passing, but had not yet gained real possession as part of a final decree, she would be regarded to be in possession of the property. The law prohibits the possession of a rank trespasser without a right or title, therefore the widow's ownership must be under a claim, right, or title. In Section 14(2), "restricted estate" includes both the limited interest indicated in Section 14(1) and any additional transferee limitations.
Whether the devolution of property of a female Hindu who dies intestate under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act is unconstitutional because it is unfair and discriminatory?
Classes I and II of the Schedule to Section 8 of the HSA govern the general laws of succession for devolution of the property of an intestate Hindu male. In Class I, male and female descendants, including those of a deceased person's sons and daughters, inherit equally from their predecessors; however, only the widow and the mother inherit alongside the heirs. To achieve the gender equality and power balance that would result in the affirmative action envisioned by Article 15(3) of the Constitution, the aforementioned clause makes an absolute discrimination in favour of the widow and the mother. This was done on the assumption that in the case of a son's untimely death, the mother would be more financially reliant on his inheritance than the father.
Whether the Appellants would be entitled as Coparceners By birth at par with the sons and therefore be entitled to equal share as the sons do?
Both the pre-2005 and post-2005 effects of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 were considered by the Honourable Court. The court reversed the High Court's decision and ruled that the Appellant's side had a strong case thanks to the changes made to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act in 1956.
This modification made it such that women have always had the same legal rights and status as men and are considered coparceners by default. The Court has ruled that as of the day the Amended Act went into effect, it applies to daughters of live coparceners.
Whether the suit property was coparcenary property or Dharam Singh's self-acquired property?
What is the validity of the Sale Deeds signed on 01.09.1999 by Dharam Singh in favour of Respondent No. 1, and the following Sale Deed performed by Respondent No. 1 in favour of Respondent Nos. 2 & 3?
If a succession occurred under pre-Hindu Succession Act, 1956 legislation, then Mitakshara law would apply to the parties. In Hindu law, a male heir has a right to share equally in the inheritance of his paternal male ancestor with his male descendants up to three generations removed from him (the "three degrees rule"). Even after the implementation of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956, the type of property would continue to be that of coparcenary property.
After the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into existence, this stance has undergone a shift. After the year 1956, an individual's self-acquired property inherited from his paternal ancestors is no longer considered coparcenary property but rather the individual's own.
Whether Jasraj Singh could file the suit for eviction, in the capacity of the Karta of Dr. Santokh Singh HUF, when, admittedly, an elder member of the aforesaid HUF was alive?
Whether the High Court was right in concluding that the first appellate court had duly dealt with all the issues involved and re-appreciated evidence as provided under O.41 R.31 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short "the CPC") ?
Whether the contractual tenancy between the landlord and tenant came to an end merely by filing an Eviction Petition and whether the landlord could seek enhancement of rent simultaneously or post termination of tenancy ?
Whether the landlord could issue a notice under Section 6A of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short "the Act") for increase of rent without seeking leave of the rent controller during the pendency of an order under Section 15 of the Act directing the tenant to deposit rent on a month to month basis ?
That a younger member of the joint Hindu family can deal with the joint family property as manager in the following circumstances: -
(i) if the senior member or the Karta is not available;
(ii) where the Karta relinquishes his right expressly or by necessary implication;
(iii) in the absence of the manager in exceptional and extra ordinary circumstances such as distress or calamity affecting the whole family and for supporting the family;
(iv) in the absence of the father: -
(a) whose whereabouts were not known or
(b) Who was away in a remote place due to compelling circumstances and his return within a reasonable time was unlikely or not anticipated.
Whether the taking of a debt by a major member of the family for the marriage of a minor member of the family is a debt incurred for a legal necessity or is for illegal purpose?
Whether the debts incurred by the father for satisfying the earlier mortgages should be considered to have been incurred for legal necessity?
Whether the sale for satisfying the earlier mortgage debt of the Joint Hindu Family and for performing the marriage of a minor member of the family was rightly held to be void by the learned first appellate court?
"Antecedent debt" means antecedent in fact as well as in time, that is to say, that the debt must be truly independent of and not part of the transaction impeached. A borrowing made on the occasion of the grant of a mortgage is not an antecedent debt.
"The Child Marriage Restraint Act makes punishable the marriage of a minor when performed in India.
Whether the High court and trial court were right in dismissing the suit for specific performance?
Where a party to a contract is unable to perform the whole of his part of it, and the part which must be left unperformed forms a considerable portion of the whole, or does not admit of compensation in money, he is not entitled to obtain a decree for specific performance. But the court may, at the suit of the other party, direct the party in default to perform specifically so much of his part of the contract as he can perform, provided that the plaintiff relinquishes all claim to further performance, and all right to compensation either for the deficiency, or for the loss or damage sustained by him through the default of the defendant.
Whether the judgments of the courts were vitiated because of the misreading of the evidence of PW-2, the attesting witness to the settlement deed?
Whether the gift/settlement made by the father in favour of his married daughters of a reasonable extent of immovable property out of the Joint Hindu Family property is valid?
The Hindu Succession Act,1956.