Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
46 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
Hayatuddin v. Abdul Gani, AIR 1976 Bom. 23
|
Subsequent partition of musha gift validates. In part possession case, no formality reqd.
|
|
Abdul Hafiz Beg v. Sahebbi, AIR 1975 Bom. 165
|
Marz-ul-maut - irrevocable, 1/3rd limit - sense of imminent death + actual death
|
|
Commissioner of Gift Tax v. Abdul Karim, AIR 1991 SC 1847
|
Donatio mortis causa - movable, no limit, revokable
|
|
Hafeeza Bibi and Ors. v. Shaikh Farid (dead) by L.Rs. and Ors., 2011(5)SCALE371
|
Valid hiba = Declaration, acceptance, delivery, no reg. reqd.
|
|
Miss R. Kantha v. UOI, AIR 2010 Kant 27
|
Per incuriam - 6(1)( c) proviso ultra vires art 14 - no cutoff date
|
|
Prakash and Ors. v. Phulavati and Ors., MANU/SC/1241/2015
|
2005 Am not retrospective - cutoff applies
|
|
Uttam v. Suabhag Singh, Supreme Court, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2360 of 2016
|
Post succession u/8 or s.6 proviso, no longer JFP
|
|
Ganduri Koteshwaramma and Anr. v. Chakiri Yanadi and Anr. AIR2012SC169
|
Preliminary decree does not effect partition - future laws cause fluctuation
|
|
Smt. Swaran Lata and Ors. v. Shri Kulbhushan Lal and Ors. 2014(141)DRJ205 \
|
Deemed partition does not crystallize shares, will fluctuate under future law
|
|
Gurupad Khandappa Magdum v. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum, AIR 1978 SC 1239
|
Share devolving by IS in addition to widow's ind. Share
|
|
CWT v. Chander Sen, AIR 1986 SC 1753
|
Property devolved u/8 is separate
|
|
Shalini Sumant Raut & Ors v. Milind Sumant Raut & Ors. and Dr. Gautam Manohar Raut & Anr. 2013(5)BomCR430
|
Upheld locus of coparcener's male descendants to implead themselves in partition suit
|
|
Santosh Popat Chavan v. Sulochana Rajiv, High Court of Bombay, Second Appeal Nos. 119 and 405/2013 decided on December 12, 2014
|
Widow can claim partition w/o other coparceners claiming
|
|
Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar, AIR 1985 SC 628
|
Husband merely possesses stridhan, refusal to return/repay is misappropriation
|
|
Jagannathan Pillai v. Kunjithapadam Pillai, AIR 1987 SC 1493
|
Widow re-acquisition pre-enforcement - in possession -> absolute right
|
|
Jayalakshmi Ammal v. Kaliaperumal, AIR 2014 Mad 185
|
Settlement to cover pre-existing maintenance obligation -> absolute right
|
|
Vaddeboyina Tulasamma v. Vaddeboyina Sesha Reddi, AIR 1977 SC 1944
|
Compromise decree for saali's maintenance - alienated - antecedent rt. -> 14(1)
|
|
Bhagat Ram v. Teja Singh, AIR 2002 SC 1
|
Brother in law claiming deceased widow's prop - s 15(1) - alienee interest upheld
|
|
Omprakash v. Radhacharan, 2009(7) SCALE 51
|
Women's SAP devolves under 15(1)
|
|
Vellikannu v. R. Singaperumal and Anr. MANU/SC/0367/2005; AIR2005SC2587
|
Murderer treated as never existing - descendants disqualified
|
|
Musa Miya v. Kadar Bax
|
Exception to hiba delivery rule - husband, father to minor (guardian accepts)
|
|
Valia Umma v P. N. Kumhamu
|
Hiba not saved by reg - Mother can accept hiba deliver minor daughter pre-puberty + no guardian sitch
|
|
SBI v Ghamandi Ram |
HJF is not a legal person, but a body of individuals. |
|
CIT v G Lakshminarayanan |
HUF is different from coparcenary. Single coparcener with dependents can form an HUF. |
|
Moro Vishvanath v Ganesh Vithal |
Partition cannot be demanded by one more than four degrees removed from the last owner. |
|
Mohd. Hussain Khan v Babu Kishva Nandan |
Property inherited from maternal grandfather is not coparcenary property. Holder may dispose as he likes. |
|
Mudaliar v Mudaliar |
For gift/will of separate property to son, must see intention of giver to decide whether it becomes separate property of son or coparcenary property of son's branch. No presumption either way; facts and circumstances of each case. |
|
Dipo v. Wassan Singh |
Coparcenary property inherited after partition is separate property of holder if he has no male issue, and his cousins/uncles have no rights by survivorship; property will devolve by intestate/testamentary succession. |
|
CWT v. Sridharan and v. Rosa Maria Steinbicher |
Marriage between Hindu male and Christian female under SMA: son presumed to be Hindu; HUF continues unaltered -> tax exemption applicable; SMA only creates collateral right of succession to issue. |
|
Revanasidappa v. Mallikarjun |
By virtue of S. 16(3) HMA, illegitimate children have rights in the separate property of parents - self-acquired or ancestral (after partition). /tr>E |
|
Dev Kishan v. Ram Kishan |
Antecedent debt means antecedent in fact as well as time. Father can sell/mortgage his share and his sons' share of coparcenary property to discharge his personal debt provided: (i) debt is antecedent; (ii) debt not incurred for immoral purpose. Debt incurred for marriage of minor daughters of family was unlawful. |
|
Nopany Investments v. Santokh Singh |
A younger member of a Joint Hindu Family can deal with the joint family property as manager in the following circumstances: 1. if the senior member or the Karta is not available; 2. where the Karta relinquishes his right expressly or by necessary implication; 3. in the absence of the manager in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances such as distress or calamity affecting the whole family and for supporting the family; 4. in the absence of the father: a. whose whereabouts were not known; or b. who was away in a remote place due to compelling circumstances and his return within a reasonable time was unlikely or not anticipated. |
|
Hunooman Persaud v. Mussumat Babooee |
Mortgage lender to HUF should enquire into necessities of loan and satisfy himself that the mortgage is being done for benefit of family. Bona fide lender's charge is not affected by precedent mismanagement of estate. Mala fide lender who helped create the necessity or knows that loan is not for benefit of family cannot benefit from his own wrong. |
|
Balmukand v. Kamlawati |
For a transaction to be regarded as of benefit to the family it need not be of defensive character i.e. out of legal necessity; it could be a positive step taken to profit the family. Adult members of the family are well within their rights in saying that no part of the family property could be parted with or agreed to be parted with by the manager on the ground of alleged benefit to the family without consulting them. |
|
Sujata Sharma v. Manu Gupta |
After the 2005 amendment, the eldest daughter, being a coparcener, can act as the karta. |
|
Shreya Vidyarthi v. Ashok Vidyarthi |
Hindu widow is not a coparcener but can act as manager of coparcenary property as legal guardian of minor male coparcener. This role is distinct from karta. |
|
Kuppayee v. Raja Gounder |
Father/manager of coparcenary property can make gift within reasonable limits for pious purposes, including gift for maintenance of daughter. Reasonable limit depends on facts of each case - extent of family property, no. of daughters, daughter's financial position etc. Customarily given at time of marriage but can be given at other times. Can be given at once or in several installments. This does not extend to other female members; gift to wife not allowed. b |
|
Raghavamma v. Chenchamma |
Intent to separate must be communicated (means may vary) to family members affected by partition. Partition however takes effect from the date the intent was formed. Limitation to doctrine of relation back: rights accruing in the interval between formation of intention and delivery of communication will be saved. |
|
Kakumanu Peda Subayya v. Kakumanu Akkamma |
Severance of minor from a joint family takes effect when person acting on their behalf files suit for partition. However, court must determine that it is in the minor's benefit. |
|
Ghadge v. Ghadge |
After property has devolved by succession, an adopted child cannot claim any share. |
|
Puttrangamma v. Ranganna |
Partition takes effect once intention to separate has been clearly communicated. It cannot be undone by withdrawing the communication by which it was effected. There can be reunion if others agree to take him back. |
|
Kesharbai v. Tarabai |
When a member of a joint family separates, there is no presumption that the rest of the members continue joint. Jointness/separateness is a question of fact. Burden of proof lies on the person who asserts a certain state of things on the basis of which he claims relief. |
|
Brij Narain v. Mangla Prasad |
Father can mortgage ancestral property for personal debt ONLY if it's antecedent debt and is not for immoral purpose. Mortgage to pay off old debt on same property is not antecedent debt (thus binding on ancestral estate as well as sons). |
|
Shendev v. Shegade |
Person favored by will must prove it. It must be written, signed and made in the presence of two attesting witnesses. |
|
Tagore v. Tagore |
Will creating indefinite life interests in favor of unborn descendants is invalid - primogeniture opposed to Hindu law n |
|
Dhannulal v. Ganeshram |
Proof of a Will stands in a higher degree in comparison to other documents. Suspicious circumstances leading to will being set aside - cramping, testator not aware, blanks |