Hello-sir
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 10 January 2012
This query is : Resolved
hello sir can you please send me judgement of
Hindu Succession Act.....please
Deepak Nair
(Expert) 10 January 2012
There are scores of judgments on Hindu Succession Act.
On what issue you need a judgment? Provide details of the issue.
V R SHROFF
(Expert) 10 January 2012
Better you inquire fr your problem, and we will provide u solution, or judgement as you wish
give details.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 10 January 2012
first of all thank you so much for u r reply sir,bascicallyi need a judgement of Property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property.i need a judgement who fullfilled striden" defination,if actual property owner is women then she can transfer her proparty to anyone,her children cant force her to transfer property to their name..please if you have this type of judgement then plese plese sen me,waiting for your reply....
ajay sethi
(Expert) 10 January 2012
In the case of Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar, 1985 (2) SCC 370 the Supreme Court of India explained the concept of ‘Stridhan’ and its legal position under the Indian Laws. The Supreme Court of India held that “a Hindu married woman is the absolute owner of her stridhan property and can deal with it in any manner she likes and, even if it is placed in the custody of her husband or her in-laws they would be deemed to be trustees and bound to return the same if and when demanded by her”.
Deepak Nair
(Expert) 10 January 2012
But if hte property is an ancestral property, then the children are entitled to claim and the mother cannot dispose off the property at her will.
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 10 January 2012
You can give your problems and expect suitable advise from us.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 14 January 2012
Prema vs Nanje Gowda and others [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 10 May 2011]
Family & Personal - Civil Procedure - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, ss. 151, 152 and 153 - Hindu Succession Act, 1956, s. 6A - Hindu Succession (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1990 - Suit for partition and separate possession of his share filed by respondent No.1 was decreed - Appeal filed thereagainst was dismissed - Respondent No.1 instituted final decree proceedings - Appellant filed an application u/ss. 151, 152 and 153 of the CPC for amendment of the preliminary decree and for grant of a declaration that in terms of s. 6A inserted in the Act by the State Amendment, she was entitled to 2/7th share in the suit property - Application was dismissed by Trial Court on the ground that s. 6A of the Act was not retrospective - Whether the appellant, who failed in her challenge to the preliminary decree passed in a suit for partition filed by respondent No.1 could seek enhancement of her share in the joint family property in the final decree proceedings in terms of s. 6A inserted in the Act by State Amendment, which received Presidential assent on 28.7.1994 and was published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 30.7.1994? - Held, in the instant case, preliminary decree was passed on 11.8.1992 - First appeal was dismissed on 20.3.1998 and the second appeal was dismissed on 1.10.1999 - By the preliminary decree, shares of the parties were determined but the actual partition/division had not taken place - Therefore, the proceedings of the suit instituted by respondent No.1 could not be treated to have become final so far as the actual partition of the joint family properties was concerned, it was open to the appellant to claim enhancement of her share in the joint family properties because she had not married till the enforcement of the Karnataka Act - Trial Court and Single Judge were clearly in error when they held that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of the Karnataka Act because she had not filed an application for enforcing the right accruing to her u/s. 6A during the pendency of the first and the second appeals or that she had not challenged the preliminary decree - Appeal allowed.
