Rahul a Hindu male dies intestate leaving behind mother, brother,

two sons and his widow. How will the estate of Rahul devolve? As per Hindu
law

Devolution of Estate of Rahul (Hindu male dying intestate)

Relevant Law

The succession is governed by Sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Hindu Succession

Act, 1956.

Step 1: Identify the Class of Heirs

Under Section 8, the property of a male Hindu dying intestate devolves first upon
Class I heirs listed in the Schedule.

Class I heirs present in this case:

 Widow
 Mother
 Son
 Son

👉 Brother is a Class II heir, and therefore excluded as long as any Class I heir
exists.

Step 2: Rule of Preference (Section 9)

 Class I heirs exclude all other heirs

 Hence, Rahul’s brother gets no share

Step 3: Distribution among Class I Heirs (Section 10)

 All Class I heirs inherit simultaneously and equally

 Distribution is per capita, not per stirpes

Total Class I heirs = 4

1. Widow
2. Mother
3. Son 1
4. Son 2

Conclusion

As per the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the estate of Rahul will devolve equally
among his widow, mother, and two sons, each taking one-fourth share. The
brother is excluded, since Class I heirs are present.
A' the testamentary guardian sold the property of a minor 'B' so as to meet the
minor's educational expenses. On attaining of majority the minor challenges
the sale. Decide

Legal Issue

Whether a testamentary guardian can validly sell the immovable property of a

minor for meeting the minor’s educational expenses, and whether such sale can be
challenged by the minor on attaining majority.

Relevant Law

1. Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956

o Section 9 – Testamentary guardian
o Section 8 – Powers of natural guardian (applied to testamentary
guardian by Section 9(6))
2. Guardians and Wards Act, 1890
o Section 29 – Restriction on alienation of minor’s property
o Section 30 – Effect of unauthorized alienation

Legal Position

1. Status of Testamentary Guardian

 A testamentary guardian is appointed by a will of the father or mother

(Section 9, HMGA).
 His powers are subject to the same restrictions as those of a natural
guardian.

📌 Section 9(6), HMGA expressly provides that the powers of a testamentary

guardian are subject to Section 8.

2. Power to Alienate Minor’s Property

Under Section 8(2), HMGA, a guardian cannot, without prior permission of the
court:

 Sell
 Mortgage
 Gift
 Exchange
 Lease beyond the prescribed period

any immovable property of the minor.

3. Sale for Educational Expenses

 Meeting educational expenses is undoubtedly for the benefit and welfare of

the minor.
 However, welfare alone is not sufficient.
  Prior permission of the court is mandatory before selling immovable
property.

📌 Absence of court permission makes the transaction unauthorized.

4. Effect of Unauthorized Sale

As per Section 8(3), HMGA:

 Any disposal of immovable property in contravention of Section 8(2) is

voidable at the instance of the minor.
 The minor has the right to challenge the transaction on attaining majority.

Case Law

Sri Narayan Bal v. Sridhar Sutar (1996)

The Supreme Court held that alienation of minor’s property without prior court
permission is voidable, not void, and can be set aside at the instance of the minor
after attaining majority.

Manik Chand v. Ramchandra (1981)

Even if the sale is for the benefit of the minor, lack of court sanction renders the
transaction voidable.

Application to the Present Case

 ‘A’ is a testamentary guardian.

 He sold the immovable property of minor ‘B’.
 Sale was made without prior permission of the court.
 Though the purpose (educational expenses) was beneficial, the mandatory
statutory requirement was not complied with.
 On attaining majority, ‘B’ has lawfully challenged the sale.

Decision

The sale of the minor’s property by the testamentary guardian without prior court
permission is voidable.
Therefore, minor ‘B’ is entitled to challenge and set aside the sale after attaining
majority.

✅ Final Conclusion (Exam-ready):

The sale made by the testamentary guardian, though for the benefit of the minor,
was effected without prior permission of the court as required under Section 8 of the
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. Hence, the sale is voidable, and the
minor, on attaining majority, can successfully challenge and avoid the transaction.
A' a widow, sues her father and father-in-law for maintenance separately. Is
she entitled for maintenance?

Legal Issue

Whether a widow is entitled to claim maintenance separately from her father and
father-in-law under Hindu law.

Relevant Law

1. Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA)

o Section 19 – Maintenance of widowed daughter-in-law
o Section 20 – Maintenance of children and aged parents

Maintenance Claim Against Father-in-Law

Section 19, HAMA

A widowed daughter-in-law is entitled to maintenance from her father-in-law if the

following conditions are satisfied:

1. She is unable to maintain herself from:

o Her own earnings or property, or
o Property of her husband, or
o Property of her father or mother
2. The father-in-law has:
o Sufficient means, and
o Coparcenary property in his possession from which the widow has
not obtained her share

📌 The liability of the father-in-law is not personal, but is limited to the coparcenary
property.

Cessation of Right

The right to maintenance from father-in-law ceases if:

 She remarries, or
 The father-in-law has no coparcenary property

Case Law:
Jagdish Jugtawat v. Manju Lata (2002)
Maintenance of widowed daughter-in-law is enforceable against father-in-law subject
to statutory conditions.

Maintenance Claim Against Father

Section 20, HAMA

  Section 20 imposes an obligation on a Hindu to maintain:
o Legitimate or illegitimate children, and
o Aged or infirm parents

📌 There is no provision under HAMA making a father liable to maintain his

widowed daughter.

Legal Position

 After marriage, a daughter ceases to be a dependent of her father

 Father has no statutory obligation to maintain a widowed daughter

Case Law:
Yamunabai v. Anantrao (1988)
Maintenance rights must be strictly traced to statute.

Application to the Present Case

 ‘A’ is a widow.
 Her claim against father-in-law:
o Maintainable only if Section 19 conditions are satisfied.
 Her claim against father:
o Not maintainable, as there is no statutory right.

Decision

1. Against Father-in-Law
✔️She may be entitled to maintenance, subject to:

 Inability to maintain herself, and

 Existence of coparcenary property with father-in-law.

2. Against Father
❌ She is not entitled to maintenance under the Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act, 1956

✅ Final Answer (Exam-Ready Conclusion):

A widow is entitled to claim maintenance from her father-in-law under Section 19 of

the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, provided she cannot maintain
herself and the father-in-law possesses coparcenary property. However, she is not
entitled to claim maintenance from her father, as no such obligation is imposed on
the father under the Act.

A' a male Hindu marries 'B' a non-Hindu women but does not renounce his
religion. What will be the status of their son 'C' born of their wed look ? Decide.

Legal Issue
What is the legal status of the son ‘C’, born to ‘A’, a Hindu male, and ‘B’, a non-
Hindu woman, when the husband has not renounced Hinduism?

Relevant Law

1. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

o Section 2 – Application of the Act
o Section 11 – Void marriages
2. Hindu Succession Act, 1956
o Section 8 – Succession of male Hindu
o Section 16, HMA – Legitimacy of children of void marriages

Legal Position

1. Validity of the Marriage

Under Section 2 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a valid Hindu marriage can take
place only if both parties are Hindus.

 ‘A’ is a Hindu
 ‘B’ is a non-Hindu
 ‘A’ has not renounced Hinduism

📌 Therefore, the marriage between ‘A’ and ‘B’ is not a valid Hindu marriage.

Under Section 11, HMA, such a marriage is void, as it violates the essential
condition relating to religion.

2. Status of the Child Born from Such Marriage

Even though the marriage is void, Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
protects the status of children born from void or voidable marriages.

Section 16(1), HMA:

 A child born of a void marriage shall be deemed to be legitimate, whether

born before or after the commencement of the Act.

📌 Hence, son ‘C’ is a legitimate child in the eyes of law.

3. Rights of the Child ‘C’

 ‘C’ is considered a legitimate son of ‘A’

 He is entitled to inherit the self-acquired property of his father ‘A’
 However, his right to inherit coparcenary / ancestral property is restricted

Case Law:
Bharatha Matha v. R. Vijaya Renganathan (2010)
Children born of void marriages are legitimate but can inherit only the self-acquired
property of parents, not ancestral coparcenary property.
4. Religion and Personal Law Applicable to ‘C’

 Since the father ‘A’ is Hindu and has not renounced Hinduism,
 The child ‘C’ will be treated as a Hindu for purposes of personal law,
unless he is brought up in another religion.

Case Law:
Perumal Nadar v. Ponnuswami (1971)
Religion of a child ordinarily follows the religion of the father.

Decision

 The marriage between ‘A’ and ‘B’ is void under Hindu law.
 However, the son ‘C’ born out of such wedlock is a legitimate child under
Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
 ‘C’ is entitled to inherit the self-acquired property of his father ‘A’, but not
ancestral coparcenary property

✅ Final Answer (Exam-Ready Conclusion):

Although the marriage between ‘A’, a Hindu male, and ‘B’, a non-Hindu woman, is
void under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the son ‘C’ born out of such wedlock is
deemed to be a legitimate child by virtue of Section 16 of the Act. He will be
governed by Hindu law and is entitled to succeed to the self-acquired property of his
father, but not to ancestral coparcenary property.

A Joint Hindu Family consists of father 'M' and his son 'N'. Partition takes
place between 'M' and 'N'. Two years after Partition, another son 'O' is born to
'M'. Now state who are all coparceners and what is the share of property of
each person?

Legal Issue

Whether a son born after partition becomes a coparcener, and how the property
is to be shared among the members of a Hindu family governed by Mitakshara law.

Relevant Law

1. Mitakshara Coparcenary Law

2. Hindu Succession Act, 1956
o Section 6 (prior to and after 2005 Amendment – principles of
coparcenary)

Facts of the Case

  A Joint Hindu Family consisted of:
o Father M
o Son N
 A valid partition took place between M and N.
 Two years after partition, another son O was born to M.

Legal Principles

1. Effect of Partition

 Partition severs the joint status of the family.

 After partition:
o Each coparcener takes his defined and separate share.
o The property allotted becomes separate / self-acquired property.

📌 Once partition is effected, the joint family ceases to exist between the parties.

2. Status of Son Born After Partition

 A son born after partition:

o Does not acquire a right by birth in the property already partitioned.
o He cannot reopen a valid partition, except in cases of fraud or
unfairness.

📌 Therefore, son O is not a coparcener in the property partitioned between M and

N.

Case Law:
Kalyani v. Narayanan (1980)
A son born after partition has no right in the property already divided.

3. Nature of Property in the Hands of Father

 The share obtained by M on partition becomes:

o His separate / absolute property
 He may:
o Dispose of it by will, gift, or otherwise
o It does not automatically become joint family property with son O

Case Law:
Arunachala Mudaliar v. Muruganatha Mudaliar (1953)
Property obtained by a father on partition is his separate property vis-à-vis sons born
later.
Application to the Present Case

 At the time of partition:

o M and N were the only coparceners.
 Each received ½ share.
 Son O was not in existence at the time of partition.
 Hence:
o O acquires no birthright in the partitioned property.

Coparceners and Shares

Person Status Share

M (Father) Coparcener at time of partition ½
N (Son) Coparcener at time of partition ½
O (Son born later) Not a coparcener No share

Final Answer (Exam-Ready Conclusion)

In the present case, a valid partition took place between father M and son N,
whereby each obtained one-half share in the joint family property. Two years after
partition, son O was born to M. Since the partition had already severed the joint
status, O does not become a coparcener and has no right by birth in the property
already divided. Therefore, the only coparceners were M and N at the time of
partition, and each is entitled to one-half share, while O has no share in the
partitioned property.

X' a Kartha of a family in order to purchase a fertile land in the vicinity of a city
area. Sells one acre of coparcenary property (barren land) to 'Y', whether
Kartha has the power to do? Decide.

Legal Issue

Whether a Karta of a Joint Hindu Family has the power to alienate coparcenary
property by sale for the purpose of purchasing fertile land, and whether such
alienation is valid under Hindu law.

Relevant Law

Under Mitakshara Hindu law, the Karta has limited but well-recognized powers to
alienate joint family property.
A Karta can alienate coparcenary property without the consent of other
coparceners only in the following circumstances:

1. Legal necessity
2. Benefit of the estate
3. Discharge of indispensable duties

Legal Principles Applicable

1. Legal Necessity

Legal necessity includes:

 Payment of family debts

 Marriage and funeral expenses
 Maintenance of family members

📌 Mere convenience or improvement does not fall under strict legal necessity.

2. Benefit of the Estate

 Alienation is valid if it is:

o For positive benefit of the joint family estate, or
o To prevent loss or improve the value of family property

Examples:

 Sale of unproductive or barren land to purchase productive or fertile land

 Exchange of inconvenient property for advantageous property

Case Law:
Hanuman Prasad v. Mt. Babooee Munraj Koonweree (1856)
Alienation by Karta is valid if done for legal necessity or benefit of estate.

Case Law:
Palaniappa Chettiar v. Deivasikamony Pandara Sannadhi (1917)
“Benefit of estate” is not confined to compelling necessity; prudent management that
confers advantage is sufficient.

Application to the Present Case

 X is the Karta of the joint family

 He sells one acre of barren coparcenary land
 The purpose is to purchase fertile land near a city, which is:
 o More productive
o Likely to appreciate in value

📌 This clearly amounts to benefit of the estate.

Consent of Coparceners

 For alienation based on benefit of estate, prior consent is not mandatory,

though absence of mala fide must be shown.
 The transaction must be bona fide and prudent.

Decision

✔️The Karta has the power to sell coparcenary property if the sale is for the benefit
of the estate.

✔️The sale of barren land to acquire fertile land in a city vicinity is a valid alienation
under Hindu law.

✅ Final Answer (Exam-Ready Conclusion):

In the present case, X, being the Karta of the joint Hindu family, sold one acre of
barren coparcenary land to purchase fertile land near a city. Such alienation is
justified as it amounts to benefit of the estate, since it improves the value and
productivity of the family property. Hence, the Karta has the power to make such a
sale, and the transaction is valid under Hindu law.

X' a hindu male dies, intestate leaving behind daughter, adopted son, father
and a brother. Distribute the property.

Legal Issue

How the property of a Hindu male dying intestate devolves when he leaves behind
a daughter, an adopted son, father, and a brother.

Relevant Law

Hindu Succession Act, 1956

 Section 8 – General rules of succession in the case of males

  Class I Heirs – Schedule
 Class II Heirs – Schedule
 Section 12 – Rules of distribution among heirs
 Section 3(a) – Definition of “adopted son”

Legal Principles

1. Order of Succession (Section 8)

The property of a Hindu male dying intestate devolves:

1. Firstly, upon the Class I heirs

2. Secondly, if there is no Class I heir, upon Class II heirs
3. Thirdly, upon agnates
4. Lastly, upon cognates

📌 Presence of even one Class I heir excludes all Class II heirs.

2. Status of Parties in the Present Case

Person Legal Status

Daughter Class I heir
Adopted Son Class I heir
Father Class II heir (Entry I)
Brother Class II heir (Entry II)

📌 An adopted son is treated as a natural-born son for all purposes of succession.

Case Law:
V.T.S. Chandrasekhara Mudaliar v. Kulandaivelu Mudaliar (1963)
An adopted child has the same rights as a natural child.

3. Effect of Presence of Class I Heirs

 Since daughter and adopted son are Class I heirs:

o Father and brother (Class II heirs) are completely excluded.
 Distribution among Class I heirs is governed by Section 10.

Distribution of Property

There are two Class I heirs:

 1. Daughter
2. Adopted Son

They take simultaneously and equally.

Heir Share
Daughter ½
Adopted Son ½
Father Nil
Brother Nil

Final Answer (Exam-Ready Conclusion)

X, a Hindu male, dies intestate leaving behind a daughter, an adopted son, father,
and a brother. Under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the property first
devolves upon Class I heirs. The daughter and the adopted son are Class I heirs and
therefore succeed to the estate in equal shares. The father and brother, being Class
II heirs, are excluded. Accordingly, the daughter and adopted son each take one-half
share in the property.

Vijayalaxmi a hindu woman dies intestate leaving behind illegimate daughter,

son, father and mother. Distribute her property

Legal Issue

How the property of a Hindu female dying intestate devolves when she leaves
behind an illegitimate daughter, legitimate son, father and mother.

Relevant Law

Hindu Succession Act, 1956

 Section 15(1) – General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus

 Section 16 – Order of succession and manner of distribution
 Section 3(1)(j) – Meaning of “related”
 Judicial interpretation regarding rights of illegitimate children

Legal Principles

1. Order of Succession (Section 15(1))

The property of a Hindu female dying intestate devolves in the following order:
 1. Firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including children of any
predeceased son or daughter) and the husband
2. Secondly, upon the heirs of the husband
3. Thirdly, upon the mother and father
4. Fourthly, upon the heirs of the father
5. Lastly, upon the heirs of the mother

📌 Presence of heirs in an earlier category excludes all subsequent categories.

2. Status of Illegitimate Daughter

 An illegitimate child is entitled to inherit the property of the mother.

 Under Hindu law, illegitimate children are treated as children of the mother for
purposes of succession.

Case Law:
Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun (2011)
Illegitimate children are entitled to inherit the self-acquired property of their parents.

Case Law:
Bharatha Matha v. R. Vijaya Renganathan (2010)
Illegitimate children can inherit the property of their parents but not coparcenary
property.

3. Application to the Present Case

 Vijayalaxmi, a Hindu woman, dies intestate.

 She leaves behind:
o One illegitimate daughter
o One legitimate son
o Father and mother

📌 The son and daughter fall under Section 15(1)(a).

📌 The parents fall under Section 15(1)(c).

Since heirs under Section 15(1)(a) are present, heirs under Section 15(1)(c) are
excluded.

Distribution of Property

There are two heirs under Section 15(1)(a):

1. Son
2. Illegitimate Daughter
They inherit simultaneously and equally as per Section 16.

Heir Share
Son ½
Illegitimate Daughter ½
Father Nil
Mother Nil

Final Answer (Exam-Ready Conclusion)

Vijayalaxmi, a Hindu woman, dies intestate leaving behind a son, an illegitimate

daughter, father and mother. Under Section 15(1)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act,
1956, the property of a female Hindu devolves first upon her sons and daughters. An
illegitimate daughter is entitled to succeed to the property of her mother. Therefore,
the son and the illegitimate daughter inherit the property in equal shares, while the
father and mother are excluded.

Naresh a Hindu male dies intestate leaving behind son, his father and brother.
How will the estate of Naresh desolve? Decide.

Legal Issue

How the property of a Hindu male dying intestate devolves when he leaves behind
a son, his father, and a brother.

Relevant Law

Hindu Succession Act, 1956

 Section 8 – General rules of succession in the case of males

 Schedule – Class I and Class II heirs

Legal Principles

1. Order of Succession (Section 8)

The property of a Hindu male dying intestate devolves:

1. Firstly, upon the Class I heirs

2. Secondly, upon the Class II heirs
3. Thirdly, upon agnates
4. Lastly, upon cognates

📌 Presence of a Class I heir excludes all Class II heirs.

2. Classification of Heirs in the Present Case

Heir Category
Son Class I heir
Father Class II heir (Entry I)
Brother Class II heir (Entry II)

3. Application to the Present Case

 Naresh leaves behind a son, who is a Class I heir.

 The father and brother are Class II heirs.
 Since a Class I heir is present:
o Class II heirs are completely excluded from succession.

Distribution of Property

 Only one Class I heir exists, namely the son.

 Therefore, the entire estate devolves upon the son.

Heir Share
Son Entire property (100%)
Father Nil
Brother Nil

Final Answer (Exam-Ready Conclusion)

Naresh, a Hindu male, dies intestate leaving behind a son, his father and a brother.
Under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the property of a male Hindu
dying intestate devolves first upon Class I heirs. The son being a Class I heir
excludes the father and brother, who are Class II heirs. Accordingly, the entire estate
of Naresh devolves upon his son alone.

A' adopts 'B' who is already adopted by 'C'. Is this adoption valid? Advice them

Legal Issue

Whether a person who is already adopted can be adopted again, and whether
such an adoption is valid under Hindu law.

Relevant Law
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA)

 Section 10(iv) – Persons who may be adopted

 Section 11 – Other conditions for a valid adoption

Legal Position

Section 10(iv), HAMA

A person who may be adopted must satisfy the following condition:

“The person has not already been adopted.”

📌 The Act expressly prohibits double adoption.

Effect of a Valid Adoption

 Once a child is validly adopted:

o He/she is deemed to be the child of the adoptive parents for all
purposes.
o The child ceases to have any ties with the natural family (Section 12).

📌 Therefore, a second adoption is legally impermissible.

Application to the Present Case

 ‘B’ has already been validly adopted by ‘C’.

 ‘A’ now seeks to adopt ‘B’.

Since ‘B’ is already an adopted child, he does not satisfy Section 10(iv).

Decision

❌ The adoption of ‘B’ by ‘A’ is invalid and void under the Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act, 1956.

Advice

 ‘A’ should not proceed with the adoption, as it will have no legal effect.
  ‘B’ continues to be the legally adopted child of ‘C’.
 If adoption is still intended, ‘A’ must adopt a child who satisfies all statutory
conditions under Section 10.

Final Answer (Exam-Ready Conclusion)

Under Section 10(iv) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, a person
who has already been adopted cannot be adopted again. Since ‘B’ has already been
adopted by ‘C’, the subsequent adoption by ‘A’ is invalid. Therefore, the proposed
adoption has no legal effect, and ‘A’ should be advised accordingly.

'X' a Hindu female dies intestate leaving behind her son, 2 daughters and
husband. Assign their shares.

Legal Issue

How the property of a Hindu female dying intestate devolves when she leaves
behind a son, two daughters, and husband.

Relevant Law

Hindu Succession Act, 1956

 Section 15(1)(a) – General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus

 Section 16 – Order of succession and manner of distribution

Legal Principles

1. Order of Succession (Section 15)

Under Section 15(1)(a), the property of a Hindu female dying intestate devolves:

Firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including children of any predeceased
son or daughter) and the husband.

📌 All heirs in this category inherit simultaneously and equally.

2. Application to the Present Case

 ‘X’, a Hindu female, dies intestate.

 She leaves behind:
 o One son
o Two daughters
o Husband

All fall under Section 15(1)(a).

Distribution of Property (Section 16)

Total heirs = 4

Each heir takes an equal share.

Heir Share
Son ¼
Daughter 1 ¼
Daughter 2 ¼
Husband ¼

Final Answer (Exam-Ready Conclusion)

‘X’, a Hindu female, dies intestate leaving behind a son, two daughters and her
husband. Under Section 15(1)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, her property
devolves equally upon her son, daughters and husband. Accordingly, each of them
is entitled to one-fourth share in the estate.

Hindu female dies intestate leaving behind her son, step-son and husband.
Assign the shares

Legal Issue

How the property of a Hindu female dying intestate devolves when she leaves
behind her son, step-son, and husband.

Relevant Law

Hindu Succession Act, 1956

 Section 15(1)(a) – General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus

 Section 16 – Order of succession and manner of distribution

Legal Principles
1. Order of Succession under Section 15(1)

The property of a Hindu female dying intestate devolves:

Firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including children of any predeceased son
or daughter) and the husband.

📌 Only biological or legally adopted children are recognised as “sons or

daughters” under the Act.

2. Status of Step-Son

 A step-son is not the biological or adopted son of the deceased woman.

 He is not included in Section 15(1)(a).
 Therefore, a step-son has no right to inherit the intestate property of his step-
mother.

Case Law:
Sitabai v. Ramchandra (1970)
A step-child is not entitled to inherit the property of a step-parent unless legally
adopted.

Application to the Present Case

The Hindu female leaves behind:

 One son → heir under Section 15(1)(a)

 Husband → heir under Section 15(1)(a)
 Step-son → not an heir

Since heirs under Section 15(1)(a) are present, no other category is considered.

Distribution of Property (Section 16)

Total eligible heirs = 2

Heir Share
Son ½
Husband ½
Step-son Nil

Final Answer (Exam-Ready Conclusion)

A Hindu female dying intestate leaves behind her son, step-son and husband. Under
Section 15(1)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the property devolves upon her
son and husband alone. A step-son is not a legal heir unless adopted. Therefore, the
son and husband take the property equally, each being entitled to one-half share,
while the step-son gets no share.

Ranganath married Rajani in the year 2005 and both of them lived together for some
time. Then, in 2006, Ranganath sent Rajani to her parent’s house, and starts living
separately
without giving reasonable cause. Now Rajani wants to obtain divorce. Advise her.

Introduction

Rajani and Ranganath were married in 2005. After living together for a short period,
Ranganath sent Rajani to her parental home in 2006 and started living separately
without reasonable cause. Rajani now seeks divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955.

Relevant Law

Divorce under Hindu law is governed by Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955. The grounds relevant to the present case are:

1. Cruelty – Section 13(1)(ia)

2. Desertion – Section 13(1)(ib)

1. Divorce on the Ground of Desertion (Section 13(1)(ib))

Desertion means abandonment of one spouse by the other:

 Without reasonable cause

 Without consent of the other spouse
 With intention to permanently end cohabitation
 For a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding
the petition

In the present case, Ranganath sent Rajani to her parents’ house and lived
separately from 2006 without any reasonable cause. If Rajani files the petition after
completion of two years of such separation, the requirements of desertion are
satisfied.

Case Law:
  Bipinchandra Jaisinghbhai Shah v. Prabhavati (1957) – Desertion requires
both factum of separation and intention to desert.

2. Divorce on the Ground of Cruelty (Section 13(1)(ia))

Cruelty includes mental cruelty which causes mental pain and suffering making it
impossible for spouses to live together.
Sending the wife away without justification, neglecting her, and refusing cohabitation
amount to mental cruelty.

Case Law:

 Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) – Continuous neglect and separation

amount to mental cruelty.

Conclusion

Rajani can seek divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the
grounds of desertion and mental cruelty, as Ranganath sent her away without
reasonable cause and continued to live separately with the intention of ending
marital life.

One-Line Answer (Exam-friendly)

Rajani is entitled to obtain divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the grounds of mental cruelty and desertion.

Bhandariswamy died leaving behind his self acquired property and his wife,
unmarried daughter, two sons, one sister and mother who got remarried just before
his death. Distribute his property.

Distribution of Property of Bhandariswamy

(Under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Exam-oriented answer)

Facts

Bhandariswamy, a Hindu male, died intestate leaving behind:

 Self-acquired property
 Wife
 Unmarried daughter
  Two sons
 One sister
 Mother (who had remarried just before his death)

Relevant Law

Succession to the property of a Hindu male dying intestate is governed by Sections

8 and 10 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

 Section 8: Property devolves first upon Class I heirs

 Class I heirs include:
o Son
o Daughter
o Widow
o Mother
 Section 10: Class I heirs inherit simultaneously and equally

📌 Remarriage of the mother does not disqualify her from inheriting her son’s
property.

📌 Sister is a Class II heir and is excluded when Class I heirs are present.

Application to the Present Case

Class I Heirs Present:

1. Wife
2. Mother
3. Unmarried daughter
4. Son 1
5. Son 2

Total Class I heirs = 5

Each heir takes one equal share.

Distribution of Property

Heir Share
Wife 1/5
Mother 1/5
Unmarried daughter 1/5
Son 1 1/5
 Heir Share
Son 2 1/5
Sister ❌ No share

Conclusion

On the death of Bhandariswamy intestate, his self-acquired property devolves

equally upon his wife, mother, unmarried daughter, and two sons, each taking one-
fifth share. The sister is excluded as she is a Class II heir.

One-Line Exam Answer

The property of a Hindu male dying intestate devolves equally upon his Class I heirs,
namely his wife, mother, sons and daughter, and the sister is excluded.

Mr. ‘A’ the testamentary guardian sold the property of a minor ‘B’, so as to meet the
minor’s educational expenses. On attaining of majority the minor challenges the sale.
Decide.

Legal Decision

Sale of Minor’s Property by Testamentary Guardian

Facts

Mr. A, the testamentary guardian of minor B, sold B’s property to meet

educational expenses. After attaining majority, B challenges the validity of the
sale.

Relevant Law

The matter is governed by the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956
(HMGA).

Section 9 – Testamentary Guardian

A Hindu father or mother may appoint a testamentary guardian for their minor child.

Section 11 – De facto Guardian

A de facto guardian has no authority to dispose of the minor’s property.

(Not applicable here as A is a testamentary guardian.)
Section 12 – Guardian’s Power

The powers of a testamentary guardian are subject to the restrictions imposed by

the will and to the provisions of the Act.

Section 8 – Powers of Natural Guardian (Applied by Analogy)

A guardian can alienate minor’s property only with the previous permission of the
court, except in cases of necessity.

Legal Position on Alienation by Testamentary Guardian

 A testamentary guardian does not have absolute power to sell minor’s

immovable property.
 Prior permission of the court is mandatory for sale of immovable property,
even if the sale is for the benefit of the minor.
 Educational expenses may constitute legal necessity, but court sanction is
compulsory.

Effect of Sale Without Court’s Permission

 Such sale is voidable, not void.

 The minor, on attaining majority, has the right to challenge and set aside
the sale.

Case Law

 Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India (1999) – Guardianship powers

are subject to statutory control.
 Madhegowda v. Ankegowda (2002) – Sale of minor’s property without court
permission is voidable at the instance of the minor.

Conclusion

The sale of the minor’s property by the testamentary guardian without the prior
permission of the court, even though for educational expenses, is voidable. Hence,
on attaining majority, minor B is entitled to challenge the sale and have it set aside.

One-Line Exam Answer

A sale of a minor’s property by a testamentary guardian without court permission is
voidable, and the minor can challenge it on attaining majority.