Comments on Hindu Succession Act before & after 2005 Amendment: Brief analysis of judgments

Displaying 1 - 10 of 42 in 5 pages

S reddy

S reddy

Wrote on 26 April 2018  

Refer to Mangamal@thulasi anr vs T.B Raju pronounced by supremecourt on 19th April 2018, referring to the same question which has answered by me in similar fashion.



Rudrawar Narayanreddy

Rudrawar Narayanreddy

Wrote on 26 April 2018  

see my article Law regarding vesting and divesting in Mithakshara joint family property also see my article ratio decidendi. The Ganduri case is decided on the premise that the parliament is empowered to pass the law making its application retrospective. In prakash Vs Phulavati also it is held that the parliament is empowered to pass the law making its application retrospective. But it interpreted the head note to section devolution and sub-section 3 of section 6 but not section 6(1) meaning. So landed in error. The intention of the parliament is discussed in Ganduri and Danamma cases and applied. Section 6(1) which treats daughters as if they are sons for all purpose and Hindu coparcenary must also include daughters. Clears the intention of the parliament.



S reddy

S reddy

Wrote on 04 April 2018  

What the judgement of State of maharastra vs Narayan Rao says shares of family members are fixed and cannot be diminished i.e fluctuating interest of coparcenary has become definite and fixed. They can live jointly with fixed and definite shares until the de facto partition takes place. It means she can file or declare lands under land ceiling act along with sons not seperately, but with fixed and definite share.



S reddy

S reddy

Wrote on 04 April 2018  

Case of danamma@suman is related to only daughters born before 1956 are coparceners or not. It is not the question of law whether daughter whose father died prior to 2005 get benefits of amendment. Firstly supreme court deals with question of law not with other facts,question of law is whether daughter's born prior to 1956 are coparceners, high court of Karnataka denied their right as a coparcener, because they were born prior to 1956.The same question was dealt in and it was answered favorably towards apellants.secondly judge itself says prakash vs phulavathi was the authoritative judgement and extracted all points of judgement, at the same time he quoted Ganduri's case was nothing ,but preliminary decree can be amended. In case where judge reiterates earlier decision as authority by extracting every paragraph of that judgement, it cannot be said he opposed the view taken by earlier. In case of State of maharastra vs Narayan Rao sham Rao, court accepting the principle of notional partition of guruppad and categorically said the share of family members are fixed and irrevocable.It said u cannot seperate a family member solely on notional partition.They continue as a family until they wish to seperate. Thirdly retroactive statute operates forwards and doesn't take away vested rights as retrospective statute (Bhadrinarayan shankar vs Omprakash shankar Bhandari) Finally, judgement of bagirathi vs Manivannan was so crystal clear that reading of section 6 (1) along with 6 (3) clearly shows that father has to be alive for the daughter to be a coparcener, same thing was reiterated in bhadrinarayan vs omprakash. Judgement can be considered as a precedent only with logical explanation not with vague and imprecise statements.



S reddy

S reddy

Wrote on 04 April 2018  

Case of danamma@suman is related to only daughters born before 1956 are coparceners or not. It is not the question of law whether daughter whose father died prior to 2005 get benefits of amendment. Firstly supreme court deals with question of law not with other facts,question of law is whether daughter's born prior to 1956 are coparceners, high court of Karnataka denied their right as a coparcener, because they were born prior to 1956.The same question was dealt in and it was answered favorably towards apellants.secondly judge itself says prakash vs phulavathi was the authoritative judgement and extracted all points of judgement, at the same time he quoted Ganduri's case was nothing ,but preliminary decree can be amended. In case where judge reiterates earlier decision as authority by extracting every paragraph of that judgement, it cannot be said he opposed the view taken by earlier. In case of State of maharastra vs Narayan Rao sham Rao, court accepting the principle of notional partition of guruppad and categorically said the share of family members are fixed and irrevocable.It said u cannot seperate a family member solely on notional partition.They continue as a family until they wish to seperate. Thirdly retroactive statute operates forwards and doesn't take away vested rights as retrospective statute (Bhadrinarayan shankar vs Omprakash shankar Bhandari) Finally, judgement of bagirathi vs Manivannan was so crystal clear that reading of section 6 (1) along with 6 (3) clearly shows that father has to be alive for the daughter to be a coparcener, same thing was reiterated in bhadrinarayan vs omprakash. Judgement can be considered as a precedent only with logical explanation not with vague and imprecise statements.



S reddy

S reddy

Wrote on 04 April 2018  

Case of danamma@suman is related to only daughters born before 1956 are coparceners or not. It is not the question of law whether daughter whose father died prior to 2005 get benefits of amendment. Firstly supreme court deals with question of law not with other facts,question of law is whether daughter's born prior to 1956 are coparceners, high court of Karnataka denied their right as a coparcener, because they were born prior to 1956.The same question was dealt in and it was answered favorably towards apellants.secondly judge itself says prakash vs phulavathi was the authoritative judgement and extracted all points of judgement, at the same time he quoted Ganduri's case was nothing ,but preliminary decree can be amended. In case where judge reiterates earlier decision as authority by extracting every paragraph of that judgement, it cannot be said he opposed the view taken by earlier. In case of State of maharastra vs Narayan Rao sham Rao, court accepting the principle of notional partition of guruppad and categorically said the share of family members are fixed and irrevocable.It said u cannot seperate a family member solely on notional partition.They continue as a family until they wish to seperate. Thirdly retroactive statute operates forwards and doesn't take away vested rights as retrospective statute (Bhadrinarayan shankar vs Omprakash shankar Bhandari) Finally, judgement of bagirathi vs Manivannan was so crystal clear that reading of section 6 (1) along with 6 (3) clearly shows that father has to be alive for the daughter to be a coparcener, same thing was reiterated in bhadrinarayan vs omprakash. Judgement can be considered as a precedent only with logical explanation not with vague and imprecise statements.



S reddy

S reddy

Wrote on 04 April 2018  

Case of danamma@suman is related to only daughters born before 1956 are coparceners or not. It is not the question of law whether daughter whose father died prior to 2005 get benefits of amendment. Firstly supreme court deals with question of law not with other facts,question of law is whether daughter's born prior to 1956 are coparceners, high court of Karnataka denied their right as a coparcener, because they were born prior to 1956.The same question was dealt in and it was answered favorably towards apellants.secondly judge itself says prakash vs phulavathi was the authoritative judgement and extracted all points of judgement, at the same time he quoted Ganduri's case was nothing ,but preliminary decree can be amended. In case where judge reiterates earlier decision as authority by extracting every paragraph of that judgement, it cannot be said he opposed the view taken by earlier. In case of State of maharastra vs Narayan Rao sham Rao, court accepting the principle of notional partition of guruppad and categorically said the share of family members are fixed and irrevocable.It said u cannot seperate a family member solely on notional partition.They continue as a family until they wish to seperate. Thirdly retroactive statute operates forwards and doesn't take away vested rights as retrospective statute (Bhadrinarayan shankar vs Omprakash shankar Bhandari) Finally, judgement of bagirathi vs Manivannan was so crystal clear that reading of section 6 (1) along with 6 (3) clearly shows that father has to be alive for the daughter to be a coparcener, same thing was reiterated in bhadrinarayan vs omprakash. Judgement can be considered as a precedent only with logical explanation not with vague and imprecise statements.



Rudrawar Narayanreddy

Rudrawar Narayanreddy

Wrote on 03 February 2018  

On 1st February 2018 supreme court gave judgement in line with my article there was hot arguments by one advocate who criticised me. He is proved wrong today. The Hon'ble Supreme court allotted share to a daughter whose father had died in the year 2001



S reddy

S reddy

Wrote on 14 June 2017  

In sheeladevi case, it didn't abolish coparcenary, highlighted the changes in coparcenary, because of section 6 and 8 of hindu sucession act 1956. It explicitly said any act or statute regulating sucession is always prospective, setting as binding precedent. In Eramma vs verupanna already Apex court dealt any act or statute regulating sucession is always prospective, in which coparcener died prior to 1956, the principles of HSA 1956 not applicable.



S reddy

S reddy

Wrote on 13 June 2017  

According to Guruppad, once notional partition occurs, there ends the coparcenary and the same principle followed in uttamsingh case, giving full effect to guruppad.


You need to be logged in to post comment






×

  LAWyersclubindia Menu