Fami

lyl
aw-I
ICases(
1to8)
Thecasesaresummar i
zedbyABHI
SHEKKUMAR
MISHRA,CLC,8299556360
COMMR.OFINCOMETAXvGOMEDALLI
LAXMI
NARAYAN(1935)
I
ssue-whet
herpr
oper
tyi
nthehandsofsol
esur
viv
ingcopar
cenershoul
dbet
axedashi
s
i
ndi
vi
dual
proper
tyort
hatofHUF?

Deci
sion-Thecour
tobs
erv
ed:
TheSupr
emeCour
t,i
nit
srec
entdeci
si
onsai
dthatt
heex
pressi
on
'
HinduUndiv
idedFami l
y'i
ntheWealthTaxActusedi nthesenseinwhichaHinduj
ointf
amilyi
s
under
stoodi
nt hepers
onallawofHindusandaj oi
ntfamil
ymayc ons
istofas
ingl
emaleme mberand
hi
swifeanddaughter
sandt her
eisnothi
ngintheschemeoftheWeal t
hTaxActtosuggestthata
HUFasassessabl eunitmustconsi
stofatleastt
womal emember s.

Thus,thejoi
ntstat
usoft hefami
lydoesnotcomet oanendmer el
ybecausef
ort heti
mebeing
therei
sonlyonemalememberoft hef
ami l
y.Iti
scleart
herefor
ethat"t
her
eisashar pdi
sti
nct
ion
betweenwhati sunderstoodintheHindul aw bytheexpressi
ons"undi
vi
dedHindufamil
y"and
"copar
cenary
"(c
onsist
ingofmalemember s)
.

Thec ourt
,however
,obser
v edt
hatunderHi
ndulaw,
thesol
esur
vi
vi
ngcopar
cenerhaswiderpowers
todealwi t
ht heproper
ty,but
,subjec
ttoright
soffemalemember
se.g.maint
enanc
e,mar r
iage
expenses,adopti
onbywi dow,et
c.

MOROVI
SHWANATHvGANESHVI
THAL(
1873)
I
ssue-whet
heraper
sonr
emov
edmor
ethanf
ourdegr
eesf
rom t
heor
igi
nal
acqui
reroft
he
pr
oper
tycandemandpar
ti
ti
onoft
heJFP?

Deci
sion-Apar
ti
ti
onc
anbedemandedbyonemor
ethanf
ourdegr
eesr
emov
edf
rom t
he
acquir
erororiginalowneroft hepropertysoughtt
obedivi
dedbutthatitc
annotbedemanded
byonemor ethanf ourdegreesremovedf r
om thel
as ,howev
towner erremote,hemaybefr
om
theori
ginalowne rthereof
.Be c
ause,coparcenar
yext
endstofourdegreefrom thel
astowner
(ext
inct
ionofcopar cenar
y).
Thecasesaresummar i
zedbyABHI
SHEKKUMAR
MISHRA,CLC,8299556360
MD.HUSAI
NKHANvBABUKI
SHVANANDANSAHAI
(1937)
Issue-whethert
hepropert
yinheri
tedbyahinduf
rom hi
smat
ernalgr
andfatheri
shis
separatepr
opertyorJFPandwhet heraft
erhi
sdeat
h,hi
swif
e,theonlyl
i
v i
ngheir,
wil
l
haveabsoluteownershi
pont hatproper
ty?
Deci
sion-Thecour
tobser
vedt
hatPr
oper
tyi
nher
it
edf
rom t
hemat
ernalgr
andf
ather
cannotbes aidt obeancestral.The'ancestr
alestat
e'inwhi chundert
heHi ndulaw,a
sonacqui resj oint
lywit
hhi sf atherani nter
estbybi rt
h,mus tbec onfi
nedtothe
propertydes cendedt ot
hef atherfr
om hismal eancestori
nt hemalel
ine.hence,any
i
nher i
tancebyt hedaughter'
ssonwoul dbeobstruct
edheritage.'
Thus,
est at
einher
it
ed
from mat ernalgr andf
atheri s" separat
e property'and one has f ullpowerof
dispositi
onov eritsoadev i
ce( Wil
l)madebyper sonov erhisseparatepropert
yis
full
yoper ative.

Inthepr esentcase, theestatewhichwasi nherit

edbyGaneshPr asadf r
om hi smat ernal
grandfathercannoti nthei
rlordshi
ps'opinionbehel dtobeancestralpropertyinwhi chhisson
hadani nterestjoi
ntlywit
hhim. GaneshPr asadc onsequent
lyhadful
lpowerofdi sposaloverthat
estat
e, andt hedevisemadebyhi minfavourofhi sdaughter-
i
n-l
aw,GiriBala,couldnotbe
chall
engedbyhi ssonoranyot herpersonOnt hedeathofherhusband, t
hedev iseinherf avour
camei ntooper ati
onandshebecamet heabsol uteownerofthepropert
y ;
andt hesaleoft hat
propertyinex ecuti
onpr oceedingsagainstherhusbandcoul dnotadv erselyaffecthert i
tl
e.

ARUNACHALAM VMURUGANTHA(
1953)
I
ssue-whetherafat
hergi
veshisself
-acqui
redpropert
ybygiti
f nt
erv
ivosorbywil
lto
oneofhissons,t
hesonwill
takeitasancestr
alpropert
yandson'
ssonwillhav
eint
erest
i
nitornot?
Deci
sion-TheCour
thel
dthat
-

(1)Whenaper sonrecei
vesgif
t,herecei
vesitnotbecausehei ssonorhasanyl
egalri
ght
,
butbecausehisfat
herchoosetobestowaf avouronhim whichhecouldhav
ebest
owedon
anyot herper
sonaswel l
.Whenhemakesagi f
tofseparateproper
ty,hehasanabsol
ute
discr
etion.

(2)Furt
her,t
heMi t
aksharahasplacedthef
ather
'sgi
ftunderasepar
atecat
egor
y,andhas
decl
aredthem exemptfr
om thepart
iti
on.

(3)Mitakshar
afatheri
snotonlycompet
entt
osel
lhi
ssel
f-
acquir
edproper
tyt
oastr
anger
withouttheconcurr
enceofhi
ssonsbuthecanmakeagi
ftofsuchpr
opertyt
ooneofhi
sown
sonst othedetr
imentofanot
her.
Thecasesaresummar i
zedbyABHI
SHEKKUMAR
MISHRA,CLC,8299556360
(4)Theintenti
onistobegatheredfr
om t
hetermsofthedeed.Incasethefatherhasnot
expressedhisint
enti
onc l
ear
ly
,thent
hei
ntent
ioni
stobegat
heredfr
om thelanguageofthedeed
andt hesurr
oundingcir
cumstances.

TheCour thel
dt hat
,inthepr e
s entc
ase,theWi
llexpresslyvestssonwi thabsoluteri
ghts(of
al
ienati
on),andnor eferencei smadet oson'
sson.Thushe( father
)didnotintendthat'he
proper
tyshoul dbet akenbysonasancest r
alpr operty.Theoryofequalowner shi
pi snot
appli
cabl
et othefat
her'
sgi f
ts,asfat
herhasapr
edomi nanti
nter
estinhisse
lfacqui
redpropert
y.

SMT.DI
POVWASSANSI
NGH(
1983)
I
ssue-whet
heranancest
ral
proper
tyaf
tert
hedeat
hofasol
esur
viv
ingcopar
cenercanbe
dev
olvedbysuccessi
ononhi
sonl
yhei
r(deceasedsist
er)wher
eacust
om gi
vi
ngpr
efer
encet
o
col
l
ateral
andstopsafemal
etoownanancestral
propert
y?

Deci
sion-TheSupr
emeCour
thel
dthatt
hepr
oper
tyhel
dbyas
olesur
viv
ingcopar
cenermay
consti
tutehisseparateproper
tyandonhi sdeat
hitwil
ldev
olv
ebys ucc essi
ononhisheirs,andany
custom givi
ngpr ef
erencetocol
lat
eralwouldbevoi
d.Thecourtobservedthatthecharacterofthe
propert
yv ari
es,dependinguponwhot heclai
mantisIntheabsenceofanymal ei
ssue,X' sson
helditduri
nghi sli
feti
measas ol
es ur
viv
ingcoparc
eneranditschar
ac te
rwi t
hrespe
ctt obothhis
si
s t
erandthec oll
ater
als(
sonsof'Y'
)wast hatofaseparat
eproperty
,whi chwill
gobyi nherit
ance
tothenear est"hei
r(hissi
ster
).

Commr
.ofWeal
thTax
,KanpurvChanderSen(
1986)
I
ssue-whet
hert
hei
ncomeorassetwhi
chasoni
nher
it
sfr
om hi
sfat
herwhensepar
atedby
par
ti
ti
onthesameshoul
dbeassessedasi
ncomeoft
heHi
nduundi
vi
dedf
ami
l
yofsonorhi
s
i
ndi
vidual
income.

Deci
sion-i
thasbe
enhe
ldt
hatt
her
ecoul
dbenopr
esumpt
i
ont
hati
fthepr
oper
typur
chasedbya
fat
herfel
ltohi
ssonbyi
nher
it
ancei
twasdeemedt
obei
nhi
sposi
ti
onasaKar
taofaHi
ndu
Undiv
idedFami
ly.

theHi ghCourtrel
iedwasadeci sioninthecaseofCITv.Ram Rakshpal
,AshokKumar[ (
1968)
67I TR 164( All
)]
.Int hesaiddeci si
ontheAl l
ahabadHighCour thel
dt hatinv i
ew ofthe
provisionsoftheHinduSuccessionAct,1956,t
heincomefrom asset
sinheri
tedbyasonf r
om
hisfatherfr
om whom hehadsepar at
edbyparti
ti
oncoul
dnotbeassessedast heincomeofthe
Hinduundi vi
dedfamilyoft
heson.
Thecasesaresummar i
zedbyABHI
SHEKKUMAR
MISHRA,CLC,8299556360
M/S.NOPANYINVESTMENTS(
P)LTD.vSANTOKH
SI
NGH( HUF)(
2007)
I
ssue-whet
heray
oungercopar
cenercoul
dfi
l
ethesui
tforev
ict
ion,
int
hecapaci
tyoft
heKar
ta
ofaHUF,
when,
admi
tt
edl
y,anel
dermemberoft
heaf
oresai
dHUFwasal
i
ve.

Deci
sion-t
hecour
tobser
vedt
hatay
oungermemberoft
hej
ointHi
nduf
ami
l
ycandealwi
tht
he
j
oi
ntf
ami
l
ypr
oper
tyasmanageri
nthef
oll
owi
ngci
rcumst
ances-

(
i)i
ftheseni
ormemberort
heKar
tai
snotav
ail
abl
e;

(
ii
)wher
etheKar
tar
eli
nqui
sheshi
sri
ghtex
pressl
yorbynecessar
yimpl
i
cat
ion;

(i
i
i)i
nt heabsenceofthemanageri
nexcept
ionalandextr
aordinar
yci
rcumst
ancessuchas
di
str
essorcal
amityaf
fect
ingt
hewhol
efami
lyandforsuppor
ti
ngthefami
l
y ;

(i
v)i
ntheabsenceoft
hef
ather:
(a)whosewhereabout
swerenotk
nownor(b)whowasawayi
na
remotepl
aceduetocompell
i
ngcircumstancesandhisr
etur
nwit
hinar
eas
onablet
imewasunl
ik
ely
ornotant
ici
pated.

i
thasbeenobser
vedthator
dinar
il
y,theri
ghttoactast
heKartaofHUFisvest
edi
ntheseni
or-
mostmalememberbutinhi
sabsence,t
hejuni
ormemberscanal
soactasKar
ta.

Mr
s.Suj
ataShar
mav
.Shr
iManuGupt
a(2016)
I
ssue-whet
hert
hepl
aint
if
f,bei
ngt
hef
ir
stbor
namongstt
heco-
par
cener
soft
heHUFpr
oper
ty,
woul
dbyv
irt
ueofherbi
rt
h,beent
it
ledt
obei
tsKar
ta.

Deci
sion-t
hecour
tobser
vedt
hatt
hei
mpedi
mentwhi
chpr
event
edaf
emal
ememberofaHUF
from becomingi t
sKar t
awast hatshedidnotpossesst henecessaryqualificationof
coparcenership.Section6oft heHi nduSuccessionActisasoci al
l
ybenef icial l
egislati
on;it
givesequal r
ightsofinher i
tancetoHi ndumalesandf emales.It
sobj ect
iveist or ecognisethe
ri
ghtsoff emaleHi ndusasco- parcenersandt oenhancetheirri
ghttoequal ityapr opos
succession.Therefore,Cour t
swoul dbeext r
emelyvigil
antaproposanyendeav ourt ocurtai
lor
fett
erthestatutoryguar anteeofenhancementoft heirri
ghts.Nowt hatthisdi squalifi
cati
onhas
beenr emovedbyt he2005Amendment ,
ther
ei snoreasonwhyHi nduwomenshoul dbedeni ed
thepositi
onofaKar ta.Ifamal ememberofanHUF, byv i
rt
ueofhisbei ngt hef i
rstbor neldest,
canbeaKar ta,socanaf emalemember .
TheCour tfindsnorest
ri
cti
onint helawpreventi
ngtheeldestfemaleco-
par
cenerofanHUF,
fr
om beingi tsKart
a.Theplai
nti
ff‟sfat
her
‟sr i
ghtintheHUFdidnotdissi
pat
ebutwasi nher
it
ed
byher.Nordi dhermarri
agealtertheri
ghttoinheri
ttheco-par
cenarytowhi
chshesucceeded
aft
erherf ather‟
sdemiseinter
msofSect ion6.Thesai dprovi
siononl
yemphasisest
he
st
atut
oryr ightsoffemal
es.
 Fami
l
ylawcases(
9to16)
Casesaresummar
izedby
ABHISHEKKUMARMI SHRA,
CLC,
8299556360

HUNOOMANPERSAUDPANDAYVMUSSUMAT
BABOOEEMUNRAJKOONWEREE(
1856)
I
ssue-t
hequest
ionwaswhet
herakar
tahaspowert
oexecut
emor
tgageofheri
nfantson
whenmort
gagewasf ort
hebenef
itoft
heminor'
sestat
e,t
oprev
entasequest
rat
ionand
pr
obabl
econfi
scat
ionduetonon-
paymentofgover
nmentrev
enue.

Deci
sion-
ThePr
ivyCounci
lpr
opoundedt
hef
oll
owi
ngf
ivepr
oposi
ti
ons:
-

(i
)Thepoweroftheguardi
an/managerf oraninf
anthei
r(ort
hepowerofkarta)t
ochargean
estat
ewhichisnothi
sown,isundertheHindulaw,ali
mit
edandqual
if
iedpower.I
tcanonl
ybe
exerc
isedr
ight
lyi
nthecaseoflegalnecessit
yorfort
hebenefi
tofest
ate.

(
ii
)Incaseaguardian/
managermakesali
enat
ionasaprudentman,i
nordert
obenefittheest
ate,
hebonaf
t i
delenderorali
eneei
snotaf
fect
edbytheprevi
ousmismanagementofes
tate,pr
ovi
ded
I
notherwords,heshouldn'
thav edmal
eact af
ide.

(
ii
i
)Theal
i
eneei
sboundt
omak operandbonaf
epr ideenqui
ri
esast
otheexi
stenceofnecessi
ty.

(i
v)Theal
ienee'
sposit
ioni
snotaffectedbyt
hefac
tthati
ftheminor
'
spr
oper
tywer
epr
oper
lyand
bett
ermanaged,thedangerornecessit
ywoul
dhavenotari
sen.

(
v)Theal
i
eneei
snotboundtoseeast
otheact
ual
appl
i
cat
ionofmoneyf
ort
hel
egal
nec
ess
ity
.He
i
snotanadmi
nist
rat
oroff
und.

(
vi)wheneveral
i
enat
ioni
schal
l
engedi
tisf
ort
heal
i
eneet
oshow (
'bur
denofpr
oof
)thatt
her
e
wasnecessit
y.

I
nthepr esentcase,
ther
ewasnosuggest ionthatthedebtofinfantfatherwascontrac
tedfor
i
ll
egalorimmoralpur
poses.thewidow(guardi
an/manager)witht heobjectofsav i
ngtheestate,
ofpayingthedebtofher,pr
edecessor
s,executedthemor t
gagebond.Nogr eat
erbenefi
t.
mortgagebondwasi nthenatur
eofasal v
ageex pendi
tur
e.Therefore,t
healienat
ionwil
lbebinding
ontheson

Moreov
er,abondofthi
snat ur
edoesnotexti
ngui
shthetit
leoft
heinf
ant
,itf
oll
ows
t
hen,asamatterofj
ust
iceandequi
ty,
thatt
hemortgagebondisv
ali
dandofef
fect
.
Casesaresummar
izedby
ABHISHEKKUMARMI SHRA,
CLC,
8299556360

SUNI
LKUMARvRAM PRAKASH(
1988)
I
ssue-whet
herasui
tforper
manenti
nj
unc
tionbyac
opar
ceneragai
nstt
hef
atherf
orr
est
rai
ni
ng
hi
mf r
om ali
enat
ingt
hehous
epr
oper
tybel
ongi
ngt
othej
oi
ntHi
nduf
ami
l
yforl
egal
necessi
tywas
maint
ainabl
e.

Deci
sion-
TheSupr
emeCour
tobser
ved:
Thesi
gni
fi
canceandsoci
alnecessi
tybehi
nd'
col
l
ect
ive
ownership'
ofJFP,and,
theuni
queandvi
tal
posi
ti
onoftheKarta/manageroft
heHJFcannotbe
over
looked.AKart
amayconsultt
hefami
lymembersandifnecessar
ytakethei
rconsent
,buthei
s
notanswerabl
etoeachofthem.

Nodoubtt helawconf er
sar ightonthecoparcenert ochall
enget heali
enati
onmadebyKar ta,but
thatri
ghtisnoti nclusiveofther i
ghttoobstructali
enat i
on.Forther i
ghttoobst
ructal
ienat
ion
couldbec ons i
der edasinc i
dentalt
other i
ghttochal l
engethealienati
on.Thecoparcenercannot
clai
mt helat t
errightandindeed, heisnotenti
tledtoi t
.Theref
ore,hecannotmov ethecourtto
grantreli
efbyi nj
unct i
onrestraini
ngtheKar t
afr om ali
enati
ngthec oparcenar
yproper
ty.An
i
njuncti
onc annotbegr antedwhenapar tycouldobt ai
nanef f
icaciousreli
efbyanyotherusual
modeofpr oceedi ng(exceptincaseofbr eachoft r
ust).Thecopar c
enerhasadequateremedyto
i
mpeac htheal i
enationmadebyt heKarta.

DEVKI
SHANVRAM KI
SHAN(
2002)
I
ssue-Thesubst
ant
ial
quest
ionofl
awwaswhet
hert
het
aki
ngoft
hedebtbyamaj
or
memberofthefamil
yforthemarri
ageofami normemberoft
hef
ami
l
yisadebt
i
ncur
redf
oralegal
necessi
tyori
sfori
ll
egal
pur
pose?

Deci
sion-Thecour
thel
dthatwher
ethemar
ri
ageoft
hemi
norwasper
for
medi
n
viol
ati
onoft hepr ovi
sionsoft heChi
ldMarri
ageRestrai
ntAct,1929,t hedebthav i
ng
beenincurr
edf orthatpurpose,
whichwasnotl
awful
,cannotberegardedasal awful
debt
andalienati
onont hatgroundcannotberegardedasal awfulal
ienat
ionbindingupon
theminorsIft hepropertywasmor t
gagedorsoldforthepurposeofmar r
yi
ngmi nors,
suchtransacti
onswoul dbeoppos edtopubli
cpoli
cy,i
nv i
ew ofthepr ohi
bi
ti
onofc hil
d
marri
ageunde rtheActof1929.
Casesaresummar
izedby
ABHISHEKKUMARMI SHRA,
CLC,
8299556360

BALMUKANDVKAMLAWATI(
1964)
I
ssue-whet
herkar
ta al
i
enat
ewhen t
heal
i
enat
ion wasnotf
oranyl
egal
necessi
tyorbenef
itt
oest
ate?

Deci
sion-
Thekar
ta,
as'
prudentmanager
',
candoal
lthoset
hingswhi
char
ein
furt
heranceoff amily'
sadvancementort opr eventprobablelosses,pr
ov i
dedhi sact sare
notpurelyofaspecul ati
veorv i
sionarychar acter
.Thi si
mpliesthatkar
tacan' tconvertfamil
y
propert
yintomoneyj ustbecausepr oper t
ydoesn' tyi
eldanyi ncome,withoutr epl
acingitwit
h
somemor eadv antageousproperty.But ,
ifthekar t
a'spoweri stobecontinuedt opur el
y
defensiveacts,t
herewoul dbenopr ogress.InA.T.Vasudev ar’
scase,thecour theldthatthe
kartacanalienate.
..i
fiti
sclearl
ybenef i
cial,eventhought hereisnolegal necessit
y.Ifaland
noty i
eldi
ngany thi
ngissold,thenitis..
.benefit

Thus,ineachcase,thecourtmustbesat i
sfi
edt hat" i
twas, infact,suchasconf err
edorwas
reasonabl
yexpectedtoconferbenef i
tonthef ami lyatt hetimeitwasent er
edinto.
"I nthe
presentcase,br
othersofthekartawereadults, theirconsentascopar cenersi
snecessar y.
I
nv iewoftheoppositi
onofalienati
onbycopar cener s,andt hefactthattheali
enationwas
notforanylegalnecessi
tyorbenefitt
oestate, thesai dalienati
onisv oidabl
eatthei nst
ance
ofcoparceners.

Ar
shnoorSi
nghv
.Har
pal
Kaur(2019)
I
ssue-
Thei
ssuest
hatar
isef
orconsi
der
ati
onbef
oreusar
etwof
old:

(
i)whethert
hesui
tpr
oper
tywascopar
cenar
ypr
oper
tyorsel
facqui
redpr
oper
tyofappel
l
ant
f
ather
;

(i
i)t
hevali
dit
yoftheSal
eDeedsexecut
edbyappel
lantf
atheri
nfav
ourofRespondentNo.1
andthesubsequentSal
eDeeddat
ed30.10.
2007execut
edbyRespondentNo.1infavourof
RespondentNos.2&3.

Deci
sion-I
nthepr
esentcase,t
heent
ir
epr
oper
tyofLalSi
nghwasi
nher
it
edbyhi
s
sonInderSinghascopar cenaryproper
typri
orto1956.Thiscoparcenarypropertywas
parti
ti
onedbetweenthethreesonsofI nderSi
nghbythecourtvideadecr eeofpar t
it
ion
dated04.11.1964.Theshar esall
ottedinparti
ti
ont othecoparceners,continuedt o
remain coparcenar
y propertyint hei
rhands qua t hei
rmal e descendants.As a
consequence,thepropertyall
ott
edt oDharam Singhinpart
it
ioncont i
nuedt or emain
copar
cenar
ypr
oper
tyquat
heAppel
l
ant
.

i
nThesecondi ssuecourthel
dthatItissettl
edlaw thatthepowerofaKart
atosell
coparcenar
ypropert
yissubjectt
ocertainrest
rict
ionsviz
.thesaleshoul
dbeforl
egal
necessit
yorforthebenef
itoft
heestat
e.

theonuswasont healieneei.
e.RespondentNo.1toprovethatt
herewasal
egal
necessi
ty,
orbenef
itt
otheestat
e,orthatshehadmadebonafi
deenqui
ri
e.

Asaconsequence,theSaleDeedsdated01.
09.1999areherebycancel
ledasbeing
i
ll
egal
,nul
landvoid.Dhar
am Si
nghcouldnothav
esol dthecopar
cenarysui
tproper
ty,
i
nwhichtheAppel
lantwasacoparcener
,byt
heaforesai
dall
egedSaleDeeds.

Casesaresummar
izedby
ABHISHEKKUMARMI SHRA,
CLC,
8299556360

GurammaBhr atarChanbasappav
.Mal
l
appa
Chanbasappa(1964)
i
nthi
scase,
gif
tofi
mmov
abl
eJHFpr
oper
tyex
cit
edi
ntwof
olds-

1.Gi
ftt
odaught
er

I
ssue-whet
heragi
ftofj
oi
ntf
ami
l
yimmov
abl
epr
oper
tyt
odaught
er,(
window)madeby
thef
atheraf
terhermar
ri
agewashel
dval
i
d.Att
het i
meofmakingoft
hisgi
ft
,thef
ather
hadthreewi v
es,oneoutofwhichwaspregnantandl
atergavebir
thtoason,i s
j
usti
fi
ed?

Deci
sion-TheApexCour
tanal
yse
dvar
iousHi
nduTe
xtsandde
cis
ionsoft
hecour
tsont
hepoi
nt
Andheldt hatTheri
ghtwaslostbyeff
luxofti
me.Buti
tbecamec ry
stall
i
zedintoamor alobl
igati
on.
Thef at
herorhisrepresent
ati
vescanmakeav al
i
dgift,bywayofr easonableprovisi
onsf ort
he
maintenanceofthedaughter,
regar
dbeinghadtothef
inanci
alandotherrel
evantci
rcumstancesof
thefamily
.

TheCourtheld:I
nt hepresentcase,t hegiftmadebythefathertothedaughterwaswithi
nhi s
ri
ghtandcertai
nlyreasonabl
e.Thef ami lyhadext
ensi
vepropert
ies(wort
hlakhs)
,and,t
hefather
gavethewidoweddaughteronl
yal i
fe-estateinasmal
lpor
ti
onofl and(wort
hRs.5000).Thus,the
gi
fttothedaughterisval
id.

2.Gi
ftt
orel
ati
ve

I
ssue-Thei
ssuear
ose:Cani
tbesai
dthatagi
ftoft
hisnat
uret
oar
elat
iveoutofl
ove
andaf
fect
ioni
sagi
ftf
or"
piouspur
poses"wi
thi
nthemeani
ngoft
hatexpr
essi
oni
nHi
ndu
l
aw?
Deci
sion-TheApexCour
t,i
nthepr
esentcase,
obser
ved:I
tmay
,ther
efor
e,beconceded
thatt
heex pression"piouspur poses"iswi deenough,undercer
taincircumstances,t
otakein
chari
tablepur poses.Thecour theldt hatI tmustber ememberedt hatthemanagerhasno
absol
ut epowerofdi sposalov erjointHinduf ami
lypropert
y.TheHi ndul awper mi
tshimt o
dosoonl ywi thi
nstri
ctlimits.Wecannotex t
endthescopeoft hepoweront hebas i
softhe
wideinterpretati
ongivet othewor ds" pi
ouspurposes
"i nHindulawi nadi f
ferentc
ontex
t.In
thecircumst ances,wehol dt hatagi f
tt oast r
angerofaj ointfami l
ypr oper
tybyt he
manageroft hef amilyisvoid.

Casesaresummar
izedby
ABHISHEKKUMARMI SHRA,
CLC,
8299556360

R.KUPPAYEEVRAJAGONDER(
2004)
I
ssue-whet
hert
hegi
ft
/set
tl
ementmadebyt
hef
atheri
nfav
ourofhi
smar
ri
eddaught
er
outofnatur
all
oveandaf
fect
ionofareasonabl
eex
tentofi
mmov
abl
epr
oper
ty(
one-
twent
y-
si
xth)outoft
hejoi
ntf
ami
lyproper
tyi
svali
d?

Deci
sion-TheSupr
emeCour
t,howev
er,uphel
dthev
ali
dit
yoft
hegi
ft
.TheApexCour
t
hel
dt hatthefathercanmak eagi ftofancest
rali
mmov abl
epropertytohisdaughter(a
pi
ouspur pose)withi
nreasonabl
el i
mi t
s.Thoughtheali
enati
onmustbebyanac tint
er
vi
vosandnotbyWi ll
,buttheextendedmeani nggiv
ent othewor ds"piouspurposes"
enabl
est hefathertomakesuchAgi f
tofJFPatt heti
meofhermar ri
ageorevenl ong
aft
erhermar r
iage.However
,theextendedmeaninghasnotbeenextended)thegiftmade
i
nf av
ourofot herfemalemembersoft hefamily

Thequest i
onast owhetherapar t
iculargif
tiswithi
nr easonableli
mitsornothastobe
j
udgedaccor di
ngtothestat
usoft hefami l
yandt heext
entandv alueofthepr
opertygi
fted.
Nohar dandf astrul
eprescri
binglimitsofsuchagi ftcanbel aiddown.Inthepresent
case,one-t
wenty-
sixt
hshareoft hetotalholdi
ngofthef ami l
ycannotbehel dtobeeither
unreasonableorexcessi
veunderanyci rcumstances.
Casesaresummar
izedby
ABHISHEKKUMARMI SHRA,
CLC,
8299556360

Arv
ind&AbasahebGaneshKul kar
niv
.Anna&
Dhanpal
Par
isaChougul
e(1980)
I
ssue-Thequest
ionast
owhet
hera
nce
str
alpr
ope
rtyi
ssol
dfort
hepur
pos
eofdi
scha
rgi
ng
debtsi
ncur
redbythefat
herandthebul
kofthepr
oce
edsofthesal
eissoacc
ount
ed,t
hef
act
thatas
ma l
lpar
tofthec
onsi
dera
ti
onisnotac
count
edf
orwi
ll
inval
i
dat
ethesal
eornot
?

Thetri
alcourtf
oundthatt her
ewaslegalnecessi
tyforthesaletotheextentofRs.2,
600
onl
y,thattheconsi
derati
onofRs.3,000f orthesalewasi nadequateasthelandswere
wort
haboutRs.4, 000,thatther
ewasnosuchcompel lingpressureontheestateasto
j
usti
fythesaleandtherefore,
thesal
ewasnotf orthebenefitoft
hef ami
ly.

Deci
sion-TheSupr
emeCour
tuphol
dingt
hev
ali
dit
yofsal
ehel
dthatt
hesal
ewasf
orl
egal
necessit
yasi thadt heeffectofreleasi
ngs i
xitemsofpr ope r
ti
esfrom thebur denofthe
mortgage.Thefamil
ywasal sorel
iev
edf rom t
hebur denofpayingrenttothemor t
gageeunder
theleaseback .Further
,theconsiderati
onwasnotgr osslyinadequate.Wher eancestral
propert
yissoldforthepurposeofdischargi
ngdebtsincurr
edbyt hefatherandthebulkofthe
proceedsoft hesal
ei ssoaccounted,t hefactthatasmal lpartoftheconsiderati
onisnot
accountedforwil
lnotinval
idatet
hesal e.
 Fami
l
ylawcases(
17t
o19)
Casesar
esummarizedbyABHI
SHEKKUMAR
MISHRA,CLC,
8299556360

A.Raghav
ammavA.Chenchamma(
1964)
Fact
-S,execut
eda"
Wil
l
",wher
ebyhegav
ehi
spr
oper
ti
est
oSS,
,asSS,
died,
soS|
'
spr
oper
ti
es
devolv
edupont hemi norson.Undert hewil
l,executedbySIon14Jan. ,1945,hedidn'
tgiveany
sharetohisdaughter-i
n-l
aw(wi dowofSS,),butdirect
edthatduringt heminori
tyofmi norson,
thei
rpropert
ieswoul dbeentrustedtoRaghv amma, ti
llt
hemi norsonbecomemaj or
Raghvamma, bymut ualagr
eement ,al
l
owedpr opert
iestoremaininthehandsofChenchamma, t
il
l
theminorsondiedin1949, whenRaghv ammaf il
edas ui
tforpossessionofpropert
iesonthe
groundofall
eged'Will
'.
Thesui twascontest
edbyChenchammaont hegr oundthat-herhusband
SSIwasnotadoptedbyRaghv amma, andthatshewasdeni edther i
ghttoparti
ti
on.

I
ssue-whet
heramemberoft
heJHF,
becomessepar
atef
rom t
heot
hermember
soft
hef
ami
l
y,
byameredecl
arat
ionofhi
sunequi
vocal
int
ent
iont
odiv
idef
rom t
hef
ami
l
y,wi
thoutbr
ingi
ngt
he
samet
otheknowledgeoftheot
herfami
lymember
s.

Deci
sion-AWi
l
lcont
aini
ngadecl
arat
ionofi
ntent
iont
osepar
atewi
l
lnotr
esul
tinsev
erance
ofstatusunlessi tisbr oughttot henot iceoft heKar taandot hercopar cener
s.An
uncommuni cat edexpr essionofi nt
ention, atbest,canamountt oadesi r
etopar t
it
ion,i
tcannot
amountt osev eranceofst atus.Further, t
hedecl arati
onoft heint ent
ion,inordertobeef f
ecti
ve,
mustbecommuni cateddur ingt heli
fetimeoft heonewhoexpr essesit.UndertheHi ndulaw,
presumptionisal way si nfavourofj oi
ntf ami l
y.Thebur dentopr ovethepar t
iti
onliesonthe
pl
ainti
ffandt hisbur denwasnotdi schar gedint hepresentcase.Ev enifthe"Will
"maybe
presumedt ocont aint heintentionoft heexecut anttoseparate, part
iti
oncannotbeef f
ecti
ve
unlesssuchani ntenti
oni sknownt oot hercopar ceners.

Held-Thus,
theplai
nti
ffcouldn'
tcl
aim possessi
onofproper
ti
es,
sincebysurv
ivor
shi
pthe
pr
operti
esdevol
vedupont heminorson,andaf t
erhi
sdeath,
uponhisguar
diani.
e.
Chenchamma.
Casesar
esummarizedbyABHI
SHEKKUMAR
MISHRA,CLC,
8299556360

Put
tr
angummavRangamma(
1968)
Fact
-Int
hiscase,t
heKar
ta,wi
thhi
sthr
eebr
other
sandt
hei
rdescendant
sconst
it
utedaj
oint
family
.TheKar tabecamesi ck;whilei nhospitalheissuedanot icetosepar atefrom t hej
oint
family
.Hi sy oungerbr ot
her'
ssonwhowasi nhospi talatthattimesnat chedt henot iceand
attemptedt ot eari t
,butwaspr eventedf rom doingso.Af tert
henot i
cewasr egi
steredatthe
postof f
ice,t
hef amilymember sintervened,tr
iedtobringaboutanami cabl
eset tl
ement .Att
his,
theKar t
awi t
hdr ewt henot
ice.Howev er ,noagreementcouldber eachedsubsequent ly
.TheKar ta
signedav akalat namaandi nst
ructedhi slawy ertoi nst
it
uteasui tf orpar t
iti
on.TheKar ta,
howev er,di
edont hesamedaywhent hesuitwasi nst
it
uted.

I
ssue-(
i)modeofser
viceofcommuni
cat
ionofi
ntent
ionandi
tsef
fi
cacy
;(i
i
)whet
hert
he
ser
viceofnot
iceonaKar
tawoul
dbeenough,
oronmaj
ormember
s,oronal
lcopar
cener
s.

Deci
sion-The'cour
t,r
egar
dingt
hef
ir
stquest
ionobser
vedt
hatt
hepr
ocessof
communi cat
ionmayv ar
ywithci rcumst ancesofeachcase.Thepr oofoff or
mal
dispatchorr eceiptofcommuni cationbyot hermember sisnotes s enti
al,
noritsabsence
fatalt
os ev er
anc eofstat
us.Whati snecessar yisthatdeclar at
iontobeef fecti
veshould
reacht heaf f
ectedpersonsbysomepr ocessappr opr i
atetogi vensituati
onand
circumst ancesoft hecase.Int hi
scase, acoparcenerpost edal ettercommuni cati
ng
i
nt ent
iont osev er,
butbefor
et helettercouldreachitsdes t
inati
on,itwaswi thdr
awnf r
om
postof fi
ce.Butt henewsofi ntentionreachedaf fectedpar ti
esindirect
ly.Heldthatthe
communi cationwassuf f
ici
entandef fecti
veandi tcoul dnotbewi thdrawn.

Thecour tr
egardingsecondquest i
onobservedthatthatthemostappr opri
at epersont o
whom ifshouldbecommuni cated,ist
heKarta,butifhe,f
orthetimebeing,i
sunav ailabl
e,
i
tc anbebroughttothenoti
ceoft heothercoparceners.Sincet
heKar t
amanagest he
propert
yandpl aysaleadroleinitsact
ualdi
visi
on,apar t
it
ionbymetesandboundsc annot
takepl
aceunlesstheKartaisinfor
medaboutt heint
entiontoseparat
e.Howev er,
therei s
noneedt oinform eachandev erycoparc
enerindiv
iduall
yandac ommuni cat
iontothe
Kartai
ss uf
fi
cient
.
Casesar
esummarizedbyABHI
SHEKKUMAR
MISHRA,CLC,
8299556360

KakumanuPedasubhay
yavKakumanu
Akkamma(1958)
Fact
-Int
hiscase,t
hemat
ernalgr
andf
atherofami
nor"
copar
cener
,fi
l
edas
uitf
ort
he
parti
ti
ononbehalfofs aidmi nor
,ast henextfr
iendofmi nor.Thefactsestabl
i
shedcl ear
ly
proved thatthe defendants( father
,hisfir
stwi fe and his sons)were continuously
dissi
pati
ng theancest ralestatebysel li
ng lands,and byi ncurr
ing l
arge-
scal
edebt s
withoutanylegal
necessi t
y,Thef amil
ypropert
iesweresol dandf r
eshonespur chasedin
thenamesofadul tcoparceners.,Thepeti
ti
onwasadmi tted,butduri
ngthependencyof
theli
ti
gation,
theminordied.

I
ssue-Thei
ssuesar
oser
egar
dingt
hest
atusoft
hemi
noronhi
sdeat
h"(
undi
vi
dedor
separ
atemember
)andwhet
hert
hesui
tbeabat
edonhi
sdeat
h.

Deci
sion-Thecour
tobser
vedt
hatunderHi
ndul
aw,t
her
eisnodi
sti
nct
ionbet
weent
he
r
ight
sofami
norandamaj
orc
opar
cener
,asf
arast
hecopar
cenar
ypr
oper
tyi
sconcer
ned.

Regardingt hequest i
on,ast owhet herthesuitshouldabat eont hemi nor'sdeath,t he
courtheldt hatthemomentasui twasf i
l
edonbehal fofthemi nor,aseveranceofst atus
hast akenpl ace,andt heonl ydiff
erencebetweent hecasesofamaj orandami nor
coparceneris,thathere,itwasconditi
onaluponthecour tcomingt otheconclusi
ont hatit
wil
lfurthertheinterest
soft hemi nor.Til
lthecourtexaminest hatissue,thestatusofa
minoratt het i
meofhi sdeath,wouldr emainuncert
ain.Asthest atuscanbedet ermi ned
onl
ywhent hecour tdecidesthesuit
,thesuitwil
lnotabatewitht hemi nor
'sdeathandt he
courtwi l
ldecidethecaseonmer it
s.

I
nt hepresentcase,t
heparti
ti
onwasdesir
abl
e,andwitht
heappli
cat
ionoft
hedoctri
neof
rel
ati
onback,minor'
ssev
erancefr
om t
hejoi
ntfamil
ytookpl
aceonthedateoffi
l
ingoft he
parti
ti
onsuitandatt hetimeofhisdeath,hewasasepar at
emember .Ther
efore,his
shareinthepropertywouldgobyinher
it
ancetohismotherari
dnottothecoparceners
underthedoctri
neofsurvi
vorshi
p.

Thus,i
fmi nordiesduri
ngpendencyofthesuit,thesamecanbecont
inuedbyl
egal
repr
esent
ativeofminor(
motherofthepl
aint
if
finthepresentcase)
.
 Fami
l
yLawCases(
20t
o27)
Thecasesaresummar
izedbyABHI
SHEKKUMARMI
SHRA,
CLC,
8299556360

Vel
l
ikannuv
.R.
Singaper
umal
(2005)
I
ssue-whensol
emal
esur
viv
orhadi
ncur
reddi
squal
i
ficat
ionundert
heActbymur
der
inghi
sownf
ather
,canhe
cl
aim pr
oper
tyundert
heMi
takshar
aSchool
?Andi
fhecan'
t,
canhi
swi
fesucceedt
othepr
oper
ty?

Deci
sion-Thei
rLor
dshi
pshav
eobser
vedasf
oll
ows
:"Amur
der
ermus
tfort
hepur
pos
eoft
hei
nher
it
anc
e,bet
reat
ed
asi
fheweredeadwhentheinheri
tanceopenedandasnotbei
ngafreshst
ockofdescent
;theexcl
usi
onextendst
othe
l
egalaswel
lasbenef
ici
alestat
e,sot hatnei
therhecanhi
msel
fsucceednorcanthesuccessi
onbeclai
medt hr
ough
hi
m."

Thecour
theldtha
tifapersonhasmur deredhi
sf a
theroraper
sonfromwhomhewant stoi
nheri
t,
hest
andstot
all
ydis
quali
fi
ed.
Oncehe(son)ist
otall
ydis
inher
i
t e
dthe nhiswholest
oc kst
andsdisi
nher
i
tedi.
e.wi
feors
on.Whenthesonca
nnotsucc e
edthen
thewi
fewhos ucceedstotheproper
tythroughthehusbandcannotal
solayaclai
mtothepropert
yofherf
ather-
in-
law.

Ni
rmal
a&Or
s.v
.Gov
ernmentofNCTofDel
hi(
2010)

I
ssue-
"Whet
herSect
ion50oft
heDLRActhasbeenr
epeal
edbyt
heAmendmentActi
nasmuchasby
omi t
ti
ngSection4(2)oftheHSA,1956,i
thasremov edtheimmunit
ythatt
heDLRActhadwit
h
respecttothelawsofsuccessi
oninrespectofagri
cult
urall
and?
Also,i
fthatbet hecase,
dothepeti
ti
oners,bei
ngfemale,nowhavetheri
ghtt
osucceedt
othe
disputedagri
cultur
all
and?"

Deci
sion-Thecour
thol
dthatt
hepr
ovi
sionsoft
heHSAwoul
d,af
tert
heamendmentof2005,
hav
eov
er-
ri
ding
effectovertheprovisionsofSect i
on50oft heDLRActandt helat
terprovisi
onswouldhavetoyiel
dtotheprovisi
ons
oft heHSA, i
ncaseofanyi nconsistency.Theruleofsuccessi
onprov i
dedintheHSAwoul dapplyasopposedtothe
ruleprescri
bedundert heDLRAct .
Thepet i
ti
onersare,therefore,enti
tl
edt osucceedtothedisput
edagr i
cul
turall
andinter
msoft heHSA.The
respondentNos.1&2ar edirect
edt omut at
ethedisputedagri
cul
turall
and,totheext
entofLateShriI
nderSingh‟s
shar e,
infavourofthepet it
ionersandr espondentNos.3,4and5aspert heHSA.
Thecasesaresummar
izedbyABHI
SHEKKUMARMI
SHRA,
CLC,
8299556360

Ar
chnav
sDy
.Di
rect
orOfConsol
i
dat
ion(
2015)

I
ssue-Thequest
ionar
isesast
owhet
herU.
P.ActNo.1of1951orHi
nduSuccessi
onAct
,1956(
asamendedi
n
2005)i stobeappliedfordecidingri
ghtint heagricult
urall
andofpetit
ioner
'sfat
her?
Deci si
on-Thuscombi nedreadingoft hepreambl e,Secti
on4andSect i
on6oft heHinduSuccessionAct,1956itis
clearthattheActwasappl iedonJoi ntHinduMi taksharaproper
tyonlyandnotonagr i
cult
urall
and.Asheldabov e,
agricult
urall
andisinexclusivedomai nofSt at
eLegi sl
atureandParl
iamenthasnopowert oenactanylawint hi
s
respect.Secti
on4( 2)wasonl ybywayofcl ari
fi
cation.Onitsbasi
s,i
tcannotbesai dt
hatafteri
tsdelet
ion,
Hi ndu
Successi onAct,
1956suomot oappliestoagricult
urall
and.UnderSecti
on6,(asamended)daughter
saregivenr i
ght
underHi nduMitakshar
aCopar cenar
yPr opertyalone.

i
thasbeenhel dthatthepr ovi
sionsofHinduSuccessi
onAct,1956hasnoapplicati
ononagr i
cult
urall
and.Now
Sect
ion4(2)hasbeendel eted.AsheldaboveSecti
on4(2)ofHinduSuccessi
onAct ,1956wasnot hi
ngtodowitht
he
appl
icabi
l
ityoftheAct .Assucht heargumentofthecounself
orthepeti
ti
onerwill
notbei mprov
ed.
I
nv i
ewoft heaforesai
ddiscussi ons,
ther
eisnomer i
tinthewri
tpeti
ti
onanditisdismissed.

BabuRam v
.Sant
okhSi
ngh(
deceased)
(2019)

I
ssue-Whet
herSect
ion22oft
heHi
nduSuccessi
onActexcl
udesi
nter
esti
nagr
icul
tur
all
andofan
i
ntest
ateandt
hepr
efer
ent
ial
rightov
er“
immov
abl
epr
oper
ty.

Deci
sion-Thecour
tobser
vedt
hat“
successi
on”f
all
swi
thi
nthescopeofent
ryNo.5ofLi
st-
II
I.I
fther
eisno
l
ocal
lawont
hesubj
ect
,thent
hespeci
all
awwi
l
lpr
evai
lwhi
chi
nthei
nst
antcasei
stheSuccessi
onAct
.

Whent hePar l
iamentt houghtofconf err
ingther i
ghtsofsuccessi oninrespectofvari
ouspr oper
ti
es
i
ncludi
ngagr icul
turalholdi
ngs, i
tputaqual i
ficati
onont herighttotransfert
oanout siderandgave
pr
eferentialr
ight
st otheot herheirswithadesi gnedobject.Sincether i
ghti
tselfi
ncertai
ncaseswas
cr
eatedf orthefi
rsttimebyt hepr ovi
sionsoft heAct,i
twast houghtfittoputaqualif
icati
onsothatthe
pr
opertiesbelongingtot hefamilywoul dbehel dwithi
nt hefami l
y,t
ot heextentpossi
bleandnoout si
der
wouldeasi l
ybeplantedinthef amilypropert
ies.

Thecour
tconcl
udethatt
hepref
erent
ialri
ghtgi
ventoanhei
rofaHi
nduunderSect
ion22oft
heActi
s
appl
i
cabl
eeveni
ftheproper
tyi
nquestionisanagri
cul
tur
all
and.
Thecasesaresummar
izedbyABHI
SHEKKUMARMI
SHRA,
CLC,
8299556360

Rev
anasi
ddappaandanot
herv
.Mal
l
ikar
jun(
2011)
I
ssue-whet
heri
l
legi
ti
mat
echi
l
drenar
eent
it
ledt
oshar
eint
hecopar
cenar
ypr
oper
tyorwhet
hert
hei
rshar
eis
l
i
mit
edonl
ytot
hesel
facqui
redpr
oper
tyoft
hei
rpar
ent
sundersec16(
3)oft
heHi
ndumar
ri
ageact
?

Deci
sion-Thecour
tobser
vedt
hatt
hesect
ion16(
3)ofhi
ndumar
ri
ageactj
ustusest
hewor
dpr
oper
tybut
hasnotquali
fi
edi twithei
thersel
facqui r
edorancestralproper
ty.I
thasbeenkeptbr oadandgeneral.
Accordi
ngtotheamendmentt otheAct ,clausesexpr
esslydecl
aredt hatsuchchil
drenshall
belegiti
mate.Such
l
egiti
macywillhowev erbeconferr
edt ochildr
enbornoutofonlymar riageswhicharev oi
dorvoi
dable.
Theycannotbedi scr
iminatedagainstandwi l
lbeatparwithotherlegiti
matechil
drenandbeentitl
edt opr
opert
yof
parent
s,bot
hsel facquir
edandancest ral
.

Thecourthel
dt hati
nthecaseofj oi
ntfamil
ypropertysuchchil
drenwil
lbeentit
ledonl
ytoashareinthei
rpar ents'
proper
tybuttheycannotclai
mi tonthei
rownr i
ght.Logical
ly
,ontheparti
ti
onofanancestr
alpr
operty,t
hepr operty
fal
li
ngintheshareoftheparentsofsuchchildr
enisr egar
dedasthei
rselfacqui
redandabsol
utepropert
y .Matter
shouldbereconsideredbyal argerbenchandf orthatpurposetherecordsofthecasebeplacedbef orethe
Hon’bl
eCJIf orconstit
uti
onofal argerbench.

Gandur
iKot
eshwar
ammaandanr
.VsChaki
riYanandi
(2011)
I
ssue-whet
hert
hepr
eli
minar
ydecr
eepassedbyt
het
ri
alcour
tonMar
ch19,
1999andamendedonSept
ember27,
2003depri
vestheAppel
l
ant
soft
hebenef
it
sof2005AmendmentActal
thoughf
inal
decr
eef
orpar
ti
ti
onhasnoty
et
beenpassed.

Deci
sion-I
tist
ruet
hatf
inaldecr
eei
sal
way
srequi
redt
obei
nconf
ormi
tywi
tht
hepr
eli
minar
ydecr
eebutt
hatdoesnot
meanthataprel
i
minar
ydecree,bef
orethefi
naldecr
eei spassed,cannotbeal
ter
edoramendedormodifi
edbythetri
al
cour
tintheev
entofchangedorsuperv
eningci
rcumstancesevenifnoappealhasbeenpr
efer
redf
rom suchpr
eli
minary
decr
ee.

Thev
iewoft
heHi
ghCour
tisagai
nstl
awandt
hedeci
sionsoft
hisCour
tinPhool
chandandS.Sai
Reddy

Thecourtall
owedthisappeal
;setasi
dethei
mpugnedj
udgmentoftheHighCour
tandr est
oret
heorderoft
hetr
ialcour
t
datedJune15,2009.Thetri
alcour
tshal
lnowpr
oceedfort
hepreparat
ionoft
hefinaldecr
eeinter
msofitsor
derdated
June15,2009.Nocosts
Thecasesaresummar
izedbyABHI
SHEKKUMARMI
SHRA,
CLC,
8299556360

PRAKASHV.PHULVATI
(2015)
I
ssue-Theonl
yissuewhi
chhasbeenr
aisedi
nthi
sbat
chofmat
ter
siswhet
herHi
ndu
Successi
on(
Amendment
)Act
,2005(
‘t
heAmendmentAct
’)wi
l
lhav
eret
rospect
iveef
fect
.

Deci
sion-Anamendmentofasubst
ant
ivepr
ovi
sioni
sal
way
spr
ospect
iveunl
essei
ther
expr
essl
yorbynecessar
yint
endmenti
tisr
etr
ospect
ive.

Contenti
onoftherespondent
sthattheAmendmentshoul dber eadasret
rospect
ivebeingapiece
ofsociall
egi
slat
ioncannotbeaccepted.Evenasocial
legi
slat
ioncannotbegivenret
rospect
ive
eff
ectunlesssoprovi
dedfororsointendedbythelegi
slat
ure.

Wef i
ndthattheprovisotoSect ion6(1)andsub- secti
on(5)ofSecti
on6clear
lyintendtoexclude
t
het r
ansacti
onsreferredtot herei
nwhi chmayhav etakenpl
acepriort
o20thDecember ,
2004on
whichdatetheBil
lwasi ntroduced.Expl anat
ioncannotpermitr
eopeningofpart
iti
onswhi chwere
val
i
dwhenef f
ect
ed.Obj ectofgi vi
ngfinalit
ytotransacti
onspri
orto20thDecember ,2004isnotto
maket hemainprovisionretrospecti
veinanymanner .

ThecourtHel
d,Ri
ghtsunderamendmentar
eappli
cabletol
i
vingdaught
ersofl
i
vingcopar
cener
sir
respect
iveof
whentheyarebor
n.Appealbybr
other
sall
owed.OrderofHCsetasi
de.

Danamma@ SumanSur
purv
.Amar
(2018)

I
ssue-whet
her
,wi
tht
hepassi
ngofHi
nduSuccessi
on(
Amendment
)Act
,2005,
theappel
l
ant
swoul
dbecome
coparcener“
bybi
rt
h”i
nthei
r“ownr
ighti
nthesamemannerast
heson”andar
e,t
her
efor
e,ent
it
ledt
oequal
shar
eas
thatofason?

Deci sion-Thecour thel

dthatamendmentt otheaf
oresai
dSectionvi
deAmendmentAct ,
2005clinchesthei
ssue,
beyondanypaleofdoubt,i
nfavouroftheappel
lant
s.Thi
samendmentnowconf ersuponthedaughterofthe
coparceneraswel
lthestat
usofcoparceneri
nherownr i
ghtinthesamemannerast hesonandgivessamer i
ghts
andli
abili
ti
esint
hecoparcenerproper
ti
esasshewoul dhaveifshehadbeenason.

I
nt hepr
esentcase,nodoubt
,sui
tforpart
it
ionwasfi
ledinthey
ear2002.However
,dur
ingthependencyofthi
ssuit
,
Secti
on6oft heActwasamendedast hedecreewaspassedbythet
ri
alcour
tonlyi
ntheyear2007.Thus,t
heright
s
oftheappel
lantsgotcr
yst
all
i
sedintheyear2005.

ThisCourtinGandur i
Koteshwar amma&Anr .v.Chakir
iYanadi&Anr .(
2011)9SCC788hel dt
hatther i
ght
sof
daughter
si ncoparcenarypropertyaspertheamendedS.6ar enotlostmerel
ybecauseaprel
iminarydecr
eehas
beenpassedi napar t
it
ionsuit.Sofarasparti
ti
onsui t
sareconcerned,thepart
it
ionbecomesf
inalonlyonthepassi
ng
ofafinaldecree.Wheresuchsi tuat
ionar
ises,t
hepr el
iminar
ydecreewoul dhavetobeamendedtakingint
oaccount
thechangei nthelawbyt heamendmentof2005.
Thecasesaresummar
izedbyABHI
SHEKKUMARMI
SHRA,
CLC,
8299556360

Thedev
olut
ionofpr
oper
tyi
nthi
scase

Inviewofouraf oresaiddiscussi
on,int hesaidparti
ti
onsui t
,sharewi l
ldevolv
eupont heappell
ant saswel l
.Since,
Savadi diedleavingbehindt wosons,t wodaught er
sandawi dow, boththeappellantswouldbeent i
tl
edt o1/5th
shareeachi nthesaidproper t
y.Pl
aintiff(r
espondentNo. 1)i
ssonofAr unKumar( defendantNo.1).Since,ArunKumar
will
hav e1/ 5t hshare,i
twoul dbedividedintofiv
eshar esonpar ti
tioni.
e.betweendef endantNo.1Ar unKumar ,hi
s
wifedef endantNo. 2,hi
stwodaught er sdefendantNos. 3and4andson/ plai
ntif
f(respondentNo. 1).I
nt hi
smanner ,
theplaintif
f/respondentNo. 1wouldbeent i
tl
edto1/ 25thsharei ntheproperty.
29)Theappeal sar eallowedint he
aforesaidtermsanddecr eeofpartit
ionshal lbedrawnbyt hetrialcourtaccordi
ngly.
 Fami
l
ylawcases(
32t
o40)
Thecasesaresummar
izedbyABHI
SHEKKUMARMI
SHRA,
CLC,8299556360

BHAGATRAM V.
TEJASI
NGH(2002)
Fact
-Int
hiscase,
afemal
eHi
ndual
ongwi
thhersi
steri
nher
it
edpr
oper
tyt
hei
rmot
heron
t
helatt
er'
sdeat
h.Aft
erinheri
ti
ngthepropertyonesisterdi
edissuel
ess.Theothersi
stert
ook
t
hepropert
yasher'f
ather'
sheir
'[underSec.15(2)
(a)]andenteredint
oanagr eementtosel
l
t
hesamet oapersonA.Thedeceasedsi ster'
shusband'sbrotherchal
lengedthevali
dit
yof
t
hissal
eandclaimedthepropertyasanhei runderSec.15(l)
(b).

I
ssue-whet
hert
hecasef
all
sunderS.
15(
2)(
a)or15(
1)(
b)?

Deci
sion-Sect
i
on15(
2)(
a)us
est
hewor
ds'
anypr
ope
rtyi
nhe
ri
te
dbyaf
ema
leHi
nduf
rom h
er
fa
the
rormot h
e r
.
'Thusprop
ert
yinher
i
tedbyaf emal
eHindufr
om herfat
heran
dmotheri
sc arv
ed-
outf
rom afemaleHindudyi
ngint
estat
e.I
notherwordsanyproper
tyoffemal
eHi
ndu,i
finher
i
ted
byherf
rom herfa
the
rormotherwouldnotf
allunde
rSec.15(1)
,and,i
tshoul
dgothelegalhei
rs
ofherf
atherunderSec.15(2)
(a).

I
tisthesour
cefr
omwhi chthepropert
ywasinhe
ri
tedbyt
hefemale
,whi
chismoreimport
antf
orthe
pur
poseofdevol
ut
ionofherproper
ty.Ev
enift
hefemal
eHinduwhoishav
ingal
imit
edowne r
ship
becomesful
lownerbyvi
rt
ueofSe c.14(
1)oft
heAct,t
her
ulesofs
ucces
siongi
venunderSec.15(
2)(
a)
canbeappli
ed.

Om Pr
akashv
.RadhaChar
an(
2009)
Fact
-OneNar
ayani
Dev
iwasmar
ri
edt
oDi
nday
alShar
mai
n1955.Unf
ort
unat
elyshebecamea
widowwi thint
hreemont hsofhermar ri
ageandsoonaf terherinlawsdr oveheroutf r
om
mat r
imonialhome.Shewassuppor t
edbyherpar entsandwasgi veneducationandshegotan
empl oyment.Heri
n-l
awsnev erbotheredt ocar
eforher.Shedi edasani nt
est at
ein1996leavi
ng
behindlotofmoneyi nbankaccount s, ahugesumi nherPFaccountandsel facquir
ed
properti
es.Whenhermot herappli
edf orsuccessi
oncer t
if
icate,herpredeceasedhusband’s
si
ster’ssonputfort
hhiscl ai
m asal egal hei
rtoherproperti
esandbankbal ances.Asmot her
di
ed, Narayani
’sbr
otherscameonr ecor daslegalhei
rstohersi ster
’spr
oper t
ies.
I
ssue-Whet
herS.
15(
1)orS.
15(
2)woul
dbeappl
i
cabl
etot
hegi
vencase.Cour
tobser
vedt
hat
Thef
oll
owi
ngobser
vat
ions:

Deci
sion-Thi
sisahar
dcasei
nvol
vi
ngmor
alaspect
s.Thel
egal
clai
mant
shadnotl
entany
suppor tt othewomandur i
ngherl ifeti
me. Howev eri
twoul dnotleadust oi nvokedifferent
i
nterpret ati
onofast atut
orypr ov i
sionwhi chi sotherwiseimper missibl
e.Itisagainstt he
i
ntentionoft hepar li
ament.Sent imentorsy mpat hyalonewoul dnotbeagui dingfactorin
determi ningt herightsofthepar ti
eswher et helawi sotherwiseclear.I
tisal sotobeobser ved
thatnot hingpr eventedNar ayani f
rom execut i
ngawi l
linfavourofherbr othersast heyar eher
separatepr operti
es.Asshedi edint est
ate,S. 15(1)alonewi l
lprevail
.Goldenr uleof
i
nterpret ati
onmustbeappl iedint hiscase.Any thingthatfall
soutsidethescopeofS. 15(2)will
comewi thi
nt hefoldofS.15( 1).Ev eryproper tyofafemal efall
swi t
hinS.15( 1)excepti nher
ited
propertieswhi chfall
sunder15( 2).Hencet hepr opert
ieswi l
lgotoherhusband’ sheirsandnot
toherbr others.

Thecasesaresummar
izedbyABHI
SHEKKUMARMI
SHRA,
CLC,8299556360

JAGANNATHANPI
LLAIVKUNJI
THAPADAM PI
LLAI
(1987)
I
n a si t
uati
on where a Hindu widow regai
ns possession ofa pr opert
y( l
imited est
ate)
subsequenttothecommencementofH. S.Actupont her etransfer(r
econveyance)ofsame
propert
ybyt r
ansf
ereeinwhosef av ourshehadtransf
erredi tpriortotheAct,thenaccordi
ng
totheA.P.andOri
ssaHi ghCourt
s, shewouldonl
ybea' li
mi tedowner 'ofsuchpr opert
y,while
accordi
ngtoMadr asandBombayv ew,shewoul
i dbea' ful
lowner .
'Inthepresentcase,the
widowwasnoti npossessionont hedateofthec
ommenc ementoft heAc t
,butthepossessi
on
wasr est
oredtoherlat
er.

I
ssue-whet
herupont
her
econv
eyanceoft
hev
erypr
oper
tywhi
chshehadal
i
enat
edaf
ter
enf
orcementoft
heAct
,shewouldbecomeafull
owneri
nrespectofsuchapr
oper
tybyv
irt
ue
ofSecti
on14(
1)oft
heHinduSuccessi
onAct
,1956.

Deci
sion-I
tisf
uti
l
etocont
endt
hatt
hef
emal
eshal
lbei
npossessi
onofpr
oper
ty'
bef
ore'
the
comingintooperat
ionoftheH. S.Act.
Ift
hepropert
yitselfi
sac quir
edaf t
erthecommencementof
Act,t
herec oul
dbenoques t
ionofproper
tybeingeit
herinphy sic
al orc
ons t
ruct
i
vepos
sessionof
femalebeforet
hecomi ngint
oope r
ati
onoftheAc t
.Allt
hatisrequiredtobes hownbyheristhats
he
hadac qui
redthepropert
yandt hatshewas'possessed'ofpropertyattheti
mewhenhert it
lewas
call
edintoquesti
on.
I
freconvey
a nc
etakespl
a cebefor
eorafte
r1956,t
hefemalewouldce
rtai
nlybedee medtobein
poss
e ss
ionofproper
ty,
withtheresul
tSec.14wil
lappl
y.Byrever
saloftheori
ginalt
ransact
ion,
her
ri
ght
swoul dhavetobeas ce
rtai
nedasifshebec
amepos sesse
dofthepr ope
rtyfort
hefir
stt
ime,af
ter
thec
omme ncementoftheAct.

Theref
ore,
ifr
econv
ey ancet
akespl
acebef
oreoraft
er1956,t
hef
emal ewoul
dcer
tai
nl
ybe
deemedtobeinpossessi
onofpr
oper
ty,
wit
htheresul
tSec.14wi
llapply
.

Thecasesaresummar
izedbyABHI
SHEKKUMARMI
SHRA,
CLC,8299556360

V.TULSAMMAvV.SHESHAREDDY(
1977)
I
ssue-Thequest
ioni
s:Whathappenswhenaf
emal
eHi
ndui
sgi
vensomepr
oper
ti
esasa
set
tl
ementr
ecordedinadecr
ee,
whi
chpr
escr
ibesasoneoft
hecondi
ti
onst
hatt
hepr
oper
ti
eswi
l
l
rev
ertt
oherrev
ersioner
s.

Deci
sion-I
nthepr
esentcase,
Fazal
AHJ.concl
uded:
-

Provi
sionsofSec.14mustbel iberal
lyconst
ruedsoastoadv anc et
heobjectoftheAct.The
words"anyproper
ty"i
nSec .14(
1)are,evenwit
houtanyampl
i
fication,l
argeenoughtocoverany
andeverykindofproper
ty.Sec.14(2)doesn'
trefert
oanytr
ansf erwhichmer el
yrecogni
zesa
pre-
exi
stingri
ght.

Where,
howev er
,thepr
opert
yisacquiredbyafemaleHi
ndu"inli
euofpre-
exi
sti
ngri
ght",
such
anacquisit
ionwouldnotbewi t
hinthescopeandambitofSec.14(2)
,evenift
heinst
rument
,
decr
ee,orderorawardall
ott
ingt
hepr oper
typr
escr
ibesarest
ri
ctedest
ateint
heproper
ty.

Sec.14(2)doesnotr equir
et hattherestr
ictedestatemustbepr escr
ibedinexpresster
ms.
Theantecedent
softhepr oper t
y,thepossessionoftheproper
tyasont hedateoftheActand
theexist
enceofar ighti nthef emaleov erit,howeverli
mit
editmaybe,ar etheessential
i
ngredi
entsindeter
mi ningwhet herSec.14(1)orSec.14(2)woul
dcomei nt
oplay.Sec.14(2)
mustber eadinthecont extofSec.14( 1)soast oleaveaslar
geascopef oroperat
ionas
possi
bletoSec.14(
1).

TheCour t,t
hus,heldthat
,inthi
sc ase,Thewidow i
st heabsol
uteownerandtheres
tri
cti
ons
ment i
onedinthedecreetobei gnored.What
ev erl
i
mitedint
eresti
ntheproper
tyshehad,any
rest
ric
tiononherrightbei
nga" di
sabil
it
yimposedbylaw"woul dbewipedoutandherli
mited
i
nterestwouldbeenlar
gedunderSec.14(1)
.
Thecasesaresummar
izedbyABHI
SHEKKUMARMI
SHRA,
CLC,8299556360

VALI
A P. KATHEESA UMMA vPATHAKKALAN
NARAYANATH KUNHAMU(1964)
I
ssue-whet
heragi
ftbyt
hehusbandt
ohi
smi
norwi
feandac
cept
edonherbehal
fbyher
mothervali
dinabsenceofwife'
sfat
herandf
ather'
sfat
her
?Wasi tabsol
utel
ynecessarythat
possessi
onoftheproper
tymustbegivent
oaguardi
anspeci
fi
cal
l
ytobeappointedbythecourt
i
ns uchcases?

Deci
sion-Agi
ftma
debyt
hehus
bandt
ohi
smi
norwi
febyar
egi
st
ere
dde
edbutac
cept
edonhe
r
behalfbyminorwife
'smot
herisvali
d.Agif
tcanbemadethr
ought
hemot herorevenast
ranger
(underwhos ec arethe mi
nori sl i
vi
ng)inthe abs
ence oft
he guardi
ans ofminori .
e.
father/
grandf
atherort
hei
rexecutors.

Thec ourtheldthatI
fthehusbandhadhandedoverthedeedtohiswife,t
hegiftwouldha
v ebe
en
complet
e dunderMus l
i
ml awanditsee
msi mpossibl
etoholdthatbyhandingoverthedeedtohi
s
mother-
in-l
awi nwhosechargehiswifewas,duri
nghisill
nessandafterwards,t
hehusbanddid
notcompl et
ethegift
.Thus,i
nthecaseinquest
ion,gi
ftbyHtoW i sv
alidandcompl et
e.

MUSAMI
YAVKADARBUX(
1928)
I
ssue-whet
heragi
ftt
oami
norwi
t
houtde
li
ver
yofpos
ses
siont
othee
xis
ti
ngandc
ompe
tent
guar
dianofhi
sprope
rtyv
a l
i
dunderMusl
i
mlaw?Howev
er,t
herewasnoevi
denceofeit
heran
accept
ancegi
venbythefat
heroroft
hedel
i
ver
yofposses
sionoft
hispr
oper
tytothefat
heroft
hese
minors.

Deci
sion-i
twashel
dthati
tisawel
lest
abl
i
shedpr
inci
pl
eofl
awt
hatagi
fti
nfav
ourofa
minorby any per
son otherthan the f
atherorguar di
an ofsuch mi
normustbe
accompani
edwithdel
i
veryofpossessiont
ot hef
atherorguar
dianoft
hemi
nor.

Agif
tbyamater
nal
grandfat
hert
oaminorwit
houtde
li
ver
yofpos
ses
siont
oth
eex
ist
i
nga
ndc
ompe
ten
t
gu
ardi
anofh
ispr
oper
ty(i
.e.f
ather
)isi
nval
idunderMusli
mlaw.

Thus,
i hecasesi
nt nquest
ion,
thegi
fti
sinv
ali
d.]
Thecasesaresummar
izedbyABHI
SHEKKUMARMI
SHRA,
CLC,8299556360

HAYATUDDI
NVABDULGANI
(1976)
I
ssue-Thei
ssueswer
e:Howdel
i
ver
yofpossessi
onofi
mmov
abl
epr
ope
rtys
houl
dbegi
vent
o
val
i
dateagi
ftofundi
vi
dedpor
ti
on?Whatwasnecessar
ytomakeagi
ftofanundi
vi
dedpor
ti
on
capabl
eofparti
ti
onv al
i
d?

TheCour tfurtherobser ved:Howdel i

veryofpossessionofi mmov ablepropertycanbegi ven?It
contemplat est hr
eek i
ndsofc as
es(1)wher edonorisint heposses si
on(2)wher epr oper t
yisin
occupati
onoft enants( 3)wher edonoranddoneebot hr esideintheproperty.Ther eisev idencein
thi
scaset oshowt hatpar tofthepropert
ywasi ntheoccupat ionoftenantsandPl aintif
f
Hayatuddinwasal r
eadyr esi
dinginapartoftheprope r
ty.Agiftofimmov abl
epr ope r
tywhi chisinthe
occupati
onoft enant smaybecompl etedbyar equestbyt hedonort othetenant stoat t
ornt othe
donee;andwher ethedonorandt hedoneebot nresideint hepropertynophy sical departureor
for
mal entryisnecessar yandi nsuchacaset hegiftmaybecompl et
edbysomeov ertactbyt he
donorindicati
ngacl eari ntenti
ononhi sparttotr
ans f
erpos sessi
onandt odiv esthims el
fofall
controloverthesubj ectoft hegift
.