Category: Hindu Succession Act 1956

ISSUE:

Whether the property is given to a female Hindu, towards her maintenance, with right of enjoyment restricted till her lifetime forms a part of her absolute estate under section 14?

Whether the settlement deed conferred an absolute right or a limited right in the property?

Whether the sale deed executed by the first wife is valid?

RULE:

Section 14 has two objects (1) to remove the disability of a female to acquire and hold property as an absolute owner and (2) to convert the right of a woman in any estate held by her as a limited owner into an absolute owner.

ISSUE:

Who inherits the property of a Hindu female dying intestate?

RULE:

Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 provides for the general rules of succession in the case of female Hindus. It lays down the mode and manner in which the devolution of interest of a female shall take place. Section 15 (2)(a) would be applicable.

ISSUE:

Whether the exclusion from inheritance would cover enlargement of interest by survivorship, in the light of Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act?

RULE:

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.

ISSUE:

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?

RULE:

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.

ISSUE:

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?

RULE:

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.

ISSUE:

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?

RULE:

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.

ISSUE:

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?

RULE:

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.

ISSUE:

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?

RULE:

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.