Category: Uncodified Hindu Law

ISSUE:

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 ?

RULE:

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.

ISSUE:

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?

RULE:

"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.

ISSUE:

Whether the High court and trial court were right in dismissing the suit for specific performance?

RULE:

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.

ISSUE:

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?

RULE:

The Hindu Succession Act,1956.

ISSUE:

Whether the suit property is the self-acquired property of the father or it is the ancestral property has to be decided before granting any relief?

RULE:

Specific Relief Act –
Section 38: Perpetual injunction
Section 41: Injunction when refused

ISSUE:

Whether Savoy Ranganna died as a divided member of the Joint Family?

Whether the complaint filed on 13th January was validly executed by Savoy Ranganna?

RULE:

Specific Relief Act –
Section 38: Perpetual injunction
Section 41: Injunction when refused

ISSUE:

Whether adoption after the death of sole surviving coparcener, makes any difference in determining the rights of adopting son in relation to the family properties?

RULE:

The Essential Services Maintenance Act, 1968.

ISSUE:

Whether a suit is instituted by an adult or a minor they stand on the same footing?

RULE:

Under the Mitakshara law, the right, of a coparcener to share in the joint family properties arises on his birth, and that right carries with it the right to be maintained out of those properties suitably to the status of the family so long as the family is joint and to have a partition and separate possession of his share, should he make a demand for it.

ISSUE:

Do plaintiffs prove that the suit Properties are the joint family Properties?

Do defendants prove that there Was already partition on 22.4.85 And all shares holders are in Possession of their respective Shares?

Do they further prove that suit Property mention at Sr.No.5 is self-acquired property of deceased Eknath?

Whether suit is maintainable?

Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

Whether plaintiffs are entitled to partition and possession of half share in the suit properties?

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to future mesne profit?

RULE:

General presumption is that a Hindu family is joint and properties are joint family properties but once a partition takes place in a family, presumption would be that all properties stood partitioned. Burden of proof of exclusion of certain property from partition would be on party who asserts same to be joint.

ISSUE:

Whether the eldest daughter amongst the coparceners of Hindu Undivided family, be entitled as Karta?

RULE:

Section 6 of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005.