Exclusive HOLI Discounts!
Get Courses and Combos at Upto 50% OFF!
Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

SC judgement on HSA 2005, on april 19, 2018

Querist : Anonymous (Querist) 30 April 2018 This query is : Resolved 
Latest judgement of supremecourt in Mangamal@thulasi ors, says that prakash vs phulavathi is the binding precedent for coparcener died prior to 2005. It also explicitly says danamma@suman exclusively dealt only, whether daughter born prior to amendment 2005 can be treated as coparcener, not death of coparcener prior to 2005. In such circumstances prakash case is binding precedent if coparcener died prior to 2005.
KISHAN DUTT KALASKAR (Expert) 30 April 2018
dear Sir,
http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/supremecourt/2013/3186/3186_2013_Judgement_01-Feb-2018.pdf

Daughters Have Equal Rights In Ancestral Property, Even If They Were Born Before Enactment Of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 Holds Supreme Court [Read Judgment]...

The Supreme Court has held that daughters who were born before the enactment of Hindu Succession Act 1956 are entitled to equal shares as son in ancestral property. The ruling was rendered in an appeal filed by daughters challenging a decree in a partition suit, which excluded them from partition. The partition suit was filed by the grandson of the deceased propositus of a joint family in 2002. The Trial Court held that daughters were not entitled to share in property, as they were born bef...

The partition suit was filed by the grandson of the deceased propositus of a joint family in 2002. The Trial Court held that daughters were not entitled to share in property, as they were born before 1956, the year of enactment of Hindu Succession Act...
Querist : Anonymous (Querist) 30 April 2018
Same thing said here, daughter born before 1956 or after 1956, they were coparceners. In danamma@suman both trial court as well as apellate courts both first and second, rejected the plea based on as they were born prior to 1956 (they quoted division bench judgement of pushpalatha vs padma in April 2010). The same question was before many high courts, whether daughter born prior to 1956 were coparceners or not. Bombay full bench in bhadrinarayan shankar vs omprakash bhandari there was no restriction to say daughter born prior to 1956 or 2005, is not a coparcener. Same thing was reiterated in prakash case daughters are coparceners, irrespective of date of birth, only bar is father should be alive to take that benefit.
Querist : Anonymous (Querist) 30 April 2018
Same thing said here, daughter born before 1956 or after 1956, they were coparceners. In danamma@suman both trial court as well as apellate courts both first and second, rejected the plea based on as they were born prior to 1956 (they quoted division bench judgement of pushpalatha vs padma in April 2010). The same question was before many high courts, whether daughter born prior to 1956 were coparceners or not. Bombay full bench in bhadrinarayan shankar vs omprakash bhandari there was no restriction to say daughter born prior to 1956 or 2005, is not a coparcener. Same thing was reiterated in prakash case daughters are coparceners, irrespective of date of birth, only bar is father should be alive to take that benefit.
Ms.Usha Kapoor (Expert) 30 April 2018
I wrote a blog on this topic/ I f you've time go through it/ wizardlegal1.in
Querist : Anonymous (Querist) 30 April 2018
In Mangamal@thulasi, supreme court after clear persual of danamma@suman judgement only states that it is not applicable to daughter whose father died prior to 2005. In danamma@suman explicitly focused on 6 (1) with out considering 6 (3), because question of law is only daughter born prior to 1956 or 2005, question of law is not daughter will get benefits of amendment if father died prior to 2005. Again in danamma@suman it was reaffirmed that prakash case was authoritative decision. Prakash case dealt mainly on daughter right if father died prior to 2005. When 6 (3) clearly states that father should be alive, which has been extensively discussed in all division benches of high courts, ( Bagirathi vs manivannan MADRAS, chandrakala vs Anuradha ANDHRA, Bhadrinarayan vs Omprakash Bombay full bench) . In all these decisions it has been clearly stated that 6 (3) read with 6 (1) indicates father should be alive. Prakash case operates res judicata to danamma@suman.
Kumar Doab (Expert) 30 April 2018
Pls post with your ID and you can get many replies.
Your ID does not mean your email id or phone number and don’t post these also.


You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .


Click here to login now



Similar Resolved Queries :