Case Name Section Issue Rationale Held

Jose Paul Coutinho v Maria Whether the succession The PCC being a special act, The SC ruled that the PCC shall
Luiza Valentina of property of a applicable only to the domiciles govern the rights of succession
resident of Goa situated of Goa, will be applicable to the and inheritance with respect of
outside Goa in India Goan domiciles in respect to all properties of a Goan situated
will be governed by the properties wherever they be outside Goa, anywhere in India.
PCC as applicable in situated in India, and the Indian
the state of Goa or the Succession Act would not be
Indian Succession Act? applicable here.
Madhu Kishwar & Ors. V Constitutional The court lay emphasis on the The Court decided that the
State of Bihar challenge to certain need for customs to undergo exclusive right of male
provisions of the change with time, justice of one succession included in ss. 7 and
Chotanagpur Tenancy individual is the highest interest 8 of the Act must be suspended
Act which excluded of a democratic state. so long as the right of livelihood
women from intestate of the female descendant's of the
succession to tenancy Critique of the judgement: the SC last male holder continues.
rights in areas of Bihar: refused to strike down Accordingly, the Court ordered
challenged to be discriminatory provisions by disposal of the petition with the
violative of Art. 14, 19, taking a conservative view that it above relief to the female
21. lay within the domain of the STs dependents/descendants.
and that they did not have the
power to review it. Dissent/Minority opinion:

Art.14, 15, 21 must override

tribal customary law. While
other family laws do not apply to
the tribals, the principles of
fairness, equity, justness and
good conscience must apply to
them.
Ram Dev Ram v Dhani Ram Does the customary The basis of inheritance right of Customary law in the tribe
& Ors. law or Uraon tribe the daughter was that the son in favoured patrilineal succession.
apply? law had to have lived like a ghar The court found that the
jammai but that wasn’t the case at daughter was not entitled to
hand. inherit her father’s property
under customary succession.
Sarwango v Urchamahin In the absence of a In the absence of a particular Daughters would be best entitled
concrete and proven customary law, principles of to inherit property as compared
customary law justice, equity and good to other claimants.
applicable to the conscience should apply.
relevant tribe, what law
can be applied with
regard to the property?
Kajal Rani Noatia v that all women from tribal areas in Tripura are entitled to inherit property equally as the male
Raybhadur heirs.
Illyas & Ors v Badshah How will the property It was averred that there is a the court notes that the guru had
of a Kinnar’s be custom in the society governing led evidence to show that, “in
devolved intestate the Kinners that at the time of the
matters of succession eunuchs
when the religion birth of a eunuch (kinner child), it
were governed by the guru-
remains unknown? is generally taken by the Guru chela parampara” but it is not
kinner of that area and she/he is clear from this that this would
brought up by the said Guru. have been the case even if
a chela was shown to belong to a
the guru- chela Parampara will religion. This case was also
trump personal law in the case of relatively less complex as the
community property, and govern court despite sending several
the devolution of individual notices was unable to locate any
property in the absence of a other relatives of the deceased.
known religion. However, we still Therefore, the claim of
don’t know what happens to a the guru was uncontested
transgender[4] person’s
individual property in the
 presence of a known religion and
membership of community.
Sweety (Eunuch) v General Can a guru inherit the Within the Guru-Chela system, The Court referred to the legal
Public property of the Chela or the guru is the legal heir to the recognition of third gender
would the religious law chela’s property. The High Court persons in NALSA v Union of
of the deceased apply? first deliberated on why “the Act” India. It reiterated third gender
had at all been invoked in the persons’ entitlement to legal and
The order recognised lower court judgement. Rajia’s constitutional protection. It also
property inheritance identity documents made it referred to Ilyas vs. Badshah
customs within the apparent that Sweety was her alias Kamla, to argue in favour
Guru-Chela system, guru. of the custom of succession
regardless of a person’s within the Guru-Chela system.
religious identity.
Commissioner of Income Whether the income With the death of father, the son The Court decided that the
Tax v G Lakshminarayan received by right of survived as the sole surviving income of the assessee should
survivorship by the sole coparcener. However, because be taxed as the income of a
surviving male member there is no coparcener other than Hindu undivided family for the
of a Hindu undivided him, it does not follow there is purposes of super-tax under
family can be taxed in no Hindu Undivided Family. The section 55 of the Indian
the hands of such male rights of the female members and Income-Tax Act, 1922.
member as his own other surviving members of the
individual income, or it family continue to exist and the The family is considered to be
should be taxed as the possession of family property by joint unless and until proved to
income of a Hindu sole surviving coparcener is the contrary. The property was
undivided family, for the subject to these rights of the ancestral. But there is a
purposes? other surviving members of the distinction between the HUF
family. and coparcenary. For the
purposes of taxation, what is
taken into account is the
existence of a Hindu Undivided
Family and not the existence of
coparcenary.
Moro Vishwanath V Ganesh Can the plaintiff who is 3 generations to be calculated Since the plaintiff is removed
Vithal beyond three degrees from the last holder of property, from the last holder of property
from the LHP demand excluding the LHP, not from the by three generations, he is not
partition? original owner of property. entitled to claim partition.
CWT v Late R Sridharan & Whether a son born out Legitimate children of a Hindu The Court held that “in the
CWT v Rosa Maria of a wedding of a father by a Christian mother who present case, Sridharan is a
Steinbicher Hindu Father and a are brought up as Hindus would Hindu by birth and was lawfully
Christian Mother could be governed by Hindu Law. married to Rosa Maria
be said to be a Hindu Thus, son of a Hindu father and Steinbchler. Even after his
for the purposes of mother married under the Special marriage, he did not renounce
forming a HUF with Marriage Act will be a member Hinduism but continued to
the father for Tax of his father’s joint family. profess that religion. Having
purposes? been begotten out of the
aforesaid valid and lawful
Can a son of a Hindu wedlock, Nicolas Sundaram is a
father and mother legitimate child and lineal
married under the descendant of Sridharan.
Special Marriage Act
can be considered as a There is no material on the
member of his father’s record to show that Nicolas
joint family? Sundaram was not brought up
as a Hindu or that he did not
conform to the habits and
usages of Hinduism or that he
was not recognized as a Hindu
by the society surrounding him
or that he became a convert to
another faith.

Sridharan has also

unequivocally acknowledged
and expressly declared that he
 and his son, Nicolas Sundaram
formed a Hindu Undivided
Family.
aruna Sidappa & Anr v 16(3), Whether illegitimate Section 16(3) as amended, does Such children will have a right
Mallikarjun & Ors. HMA children are entitled to not impose any restriction on the to whatever become the property
a share in the property right of such children of their parents whether self-
coparcenary property except limiting it to the property acquired or ancestral. The only
or whether their share of their parents. Therefore, such limitation even after the
is limited only to the children will have a right to amendment was that children
self-acquired property whatever becomes the property cannot ask for partition but they
of their parents under of their parents whether self- can exercise this right only after
Section 16(3) of the acquired or ancestral. the death of their parents.
Hindu Marriage Act?
Such children are entitled to all
rights which are given to
children born out of valid
marriages. In HJF, these children
are entitled to a share but they
cannot claim it on their own
right.
Muhammad Husain Khan v What is ancestral The word “ancestor” in its Maternal property cannot be
Babu Kishva Nandan Sahai property? Whether ordinary meaning includes an considered ancestral property, so
property inherited from ascendant in the maternal, as well it will be separate property of the
a maternal grandfather as the paternal, line; but the grandson.
would constitute “ancestral” estate, in which,
grandson’s separate under the Hindu law, a son
property? acquires jointly with his father an
interest by birth, must be
confined, as shown by the
original text of the Mitakshara, to
the property descending to the
 father from his male ancestor in
the male line. The expression has
sometimes been used in its
ordinary sense, and that use has
been the cause of
misunderstanding.
CN Arunachala Mudaliar v Whether when self Property gifted by a father to his The Supreme Court held that
CA Muruganatha acquired property of son could not become ancestral the property was not ancestral
father given to son property in the hands of the property allowing the appeal
becomes ancestral or donee simply by reason of the and setting aside the judgments
self acquired in the fact that the donee got it from his and decrees of both courts.
hands of son? father or an cestor.
In the Court’s opinion, on
reading the will as a whole the
conclusion becomes clear that
the testator intended the
legatees to take the properties in
absolute right as their own self-
acquisition without being
fettered in any way by the rights
of their sons and grandsons.

In other words, he did not

intend that the property should
be taken by the sons as
ancestral property.
Nopany Investments v Can a junior member That a younger member of the  The Supreme Court held
Santokh Singh become a karta? joint Hindu family can deal with that the elder brother
the joint family property as Dhuman Raj Singh, who
manager in the following is permanently staying in
circumstances: – United Kingdom, was/is
not in a position to handle
 the joint family property
(i) if the senior member or for which reason he has
the Karta is not himself executed a power
available; of attorney in favour of
(ii) where the Karta Jasraj Singh.
relinquishes his right  Furthermore, there has
expressly or by been no protest, either by
necessary implication; Dhuman Raj Singh or by
(iii) in the absence of the any member of the HUF
manager in exceptional to the filing of the suit by
and extra ordinary Jasraj Singh.
circumstances such as
distress or calamity Family agreement required for
affecting the whole the change in karta.
family and for
supporting the family;
(iv) 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.

Dev Kishan v Ram Kishan Whether the taking of a “Antecedent debt” means The High court answering the
debt by a major antecedent in fact as well as in first issue said that since the
member of the family time, that is to say, that the debt debt was taken by the defendant
for the marriage of a must be truly independent of and No. 2 from the appellant
minor member of the not part of the transaction defendant No. 1 for the
family is a debt impeached. A borrowing made purposes of marrying his minor
incurred for a legal on the occasion of the grant of a daughters and as the child
necessity or is it for an mortgage is not an antecedent marriage is prohibited under the
illegal purpose? debt. Act of 1929, therefore, such
debt is opposed to the public
Whether the debts “The Child Marriage Restraint policy and cannot be termed as
incurred by the father Act makes punishable the lawful debt.
for satisfying the marriage of a minor when
earlier mortgages performed in India. And alienation on that ground
should be considered cannot be regarded as a lawful
to have been incurred alienation binding upon the
for legal necessity? minors. The expenses incurred
in connection with the marriage
Whether the sale for of a child cannot constitute
satisfying the earlier legal necessity.
mortgage debt of the
Joint Hindu Family Answering the second issue the
and for performing the court came to the conclusion
marriage of a minor that the debt taken by the
member of the family defendant No. 2 from the
was rightly held to be appellant defendant No. 1
void by the learned cannot be regarded as debt for
first appellate court? payment of antecedent debt.

The properties were not

mortgaged or sold by the
defendant No. 2 in favour of the
appellant-defendant No. 1 for
the purpose of discharging a
debt contracted by him for his
own personal benefit, but for
 the purposes of marrying his
minor children and since the
loan was taken by the defendant
No. 2 from the appellant
defendant No. 1 for the
purposes of marriage etc., the
present transactions cannot be
regarded as transactions for
payment of antecedent debt.

The High court agreeing to the

lower courts came to the
conclusion that the transactions
were not for legal necessity and
not for payment of antecedent
debt, therefore, present
plaintiffs are entitled to
challenge the sale deed.
Balmukund v Kamlawati Can a karta alienate Karta cannot do so if it isn’t for
property for the benefit the benefit of the estate.
of the estate?
R Kuppayee v Raja Whether the Father being the karta can mak The Court answering the
Gounder gift/settlement made by the gift of property within Question as to whether a
the father in favour of reasonable limits in favour of his particular gift is within
his married daughters daughter at the time of marriage reasonable limits or not has to
of a reasonable extent and long after her marriage. be judged according to the
of immovable property status of the family at the time
out of the Joint Hindu Reasonability depends on the of making a gift, the extent of
Family property is status of the family at the time of the immovable property owned
valid? making the gift, extent of by the family and the extent of
immovable property owned by property gifted. Answered it as
 the family and extent of property No hard and fast rule
gifted. prescribing quantitative limits
of such a gift can be laid down,
the answer to such a question
would vary from family to
family.

If it is found that the gift was

not within reasonable limits,
such a gift would not be upheld.
The court said that it cannot be
held that the gift made in this
case was not within the
reasonable limits of the
property held by the family.
The respondent has failed to
plead and prove that the gift
made was to an unreasonable
extent, keeping in view, the
total holding of the family. The
first appellate court and the
High Court, thus, erred in non-
suiting the appellants on this
account.
Sushil Kumar v Ram Whether a suit for 2 distinct rights: Karta has limited and qualified
Prakash permanent injunction (1) right to claim a share in the privilege over the joint family
restraining the karta of joint family estate free from property. He can alienate the
the HJF from alienating unnecessary and unwanted other coparceners in case of
the house property encumbrance; legal necessity, urgent needs or
belonging to the joint (2) right to interfere with the act in the case of a benefit to the
hindu family in of management of the joint family estate.
pursuance of the affairs. The coparcener has
 agreement to sell is former right but not latter right In case of illegal alienation of
maintainable or not? property by karta, the
coparceners can claim an invalid
alienation of the property and
obtain a stay in the sale/ transfer
of property.

The coparceners do not have the

right to obstruct the alienation
(so can’t obtain a permanent
injunction) but only have the
right to challenge it.
Namdev Vyankat Ghadge v Whether adoption after It was held that Adopted child
Chandrakant Ganpat the death of sole shall not divest any person of
Ghadge surviving coparcener, any estate, which vested in him
makes any difference or her before the adoption.
in determining the
rights of adopting son
in relation to the family
properties?
Kakumanu Pesasubhayya v Whether the high court The rights of a minor to call for Partition allowed (minor died
Kakumanu Akkamma can reverse the factual partition is governed by Hindu during pendency suit not
finding of the lower law and that the court’s duty to abated; minor’s mother
courts, that the suit for ensure best interest of the minor substituted his interests).
partition would not comes from the legal principle
benefit the plaintiff? parens patriae, whereby the
sovereign has a duty to ensure
Whether the suit for that the best interests of the minor
partition is abated by are looked after.
the death of the
plaintiff during the Under Hindu law, the rights of a
pendency of the minor to call for partition is at par
 appeal? with the rights of a major to do
so. Therefore, it held that
partition is effected as soon as a
clear and unequivocal declaration
of the same is made by the
plaintiff. •The decision on best
interest does not create the right
in itself, but it only a further
check to ensure the sovereign
fulfils its role as parens patriae.
mhrabai v Tarabai General presumption is that a In this case, the trial court as
Prabhakkarrao Akkamma Hindu family is joint and well as the High Court has held
properties are joint family that there was a complete
properties but once a partition partition in the year 1985.
takes place in a family, Therefore, the presumption
presumption would be that all would be that there was
properties stood partitioned. complete partition of all the
Burden of proof of exclusion of properties.
certain property from partition
would be on party who asserts Consequently, the burden of
same to be joint. proof that certain property was
excluded from the partition
would be on the party that
alleges the same to be joint
property.

Therefore, in our opinion, the

High Court clearly committed
an error in placing the burden of
proof on the petitioners, who
were defendants in the suit to
prove that the Nageshwarwadi
 property at Aurangabad was a
self-acquired property of
Eknathrao.”
Sujatha Sharma v Manu S.6 HAS Whether the eldest It was held by the court that
Gupta post daughter amongst the there is no reason why the
2005 coparceners of Hindu Hindu women should be denied
Undivided family, be the position of Karta. To
entitled as Karta? become a Karta of the family
one must be a coparcener and
that condition is fulfilled by the
woman. So, by the virtue of
being the eldest daughter, the
plaintiff can become a Karta.
Shreya Vidharthi v Ashok Position of widow post The court in no condition gave
Vidyarthi 2005 amendment the widow the right to be a karta
but merely become a manager
Was she a karta or till the time the sole minor
merely a manager? coparcener became major.
Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh S. 6 Whether the amended The right conferred on a According to the Supreme
Sharma HSA Section 6 of The Hindu daughter, in the coparcenary Court, the Hindu Succession
Succession property is by birth and hence, it Act’s Section 6 change was
(Amendment) Act of is not necessary that the father be retroactive in nature.
2005 requires the alive as on 09.09.2005 and the Additionally, it was decided
coparcener to be alive amendment by way substitution that the daughter was born with
as on 09.09.2020, for of Section 6 of Act of 2005 is an equal right to the property.
the daughter to claim retroactive in nature. Previously, only sons had
rights in the access to this privilege.The
coparcenary property? verdict equalises the son and
daughter.
Whether the amended
Section 6 of the Act of The judgement makes it clear
 2005 is prospective, that, regardless of their marital
retrospective or status, daughters born before or
retroactive? after the amendment are granted
coparcenary status under the
Amendment Act, giving them
the same obligations and
privileges as sons.

The coparcenary claims under

Section 6 put forth by a
daughter before the Amendment
Act went into effect are invalid.
According to the ruling, claims
filed after the specified date are
admissible.

The coparcenary rights of the

daughter under Section 6 are
unaffected by the death of the
father prior to the effective date
of the Amendment Act, 2005.
Pratibha Rani v Suraj Whether the husband  Section 14 of the Hindu  The Apex Court further
Kumar has any rights over the succession act talks about explained that mere joint
‘Streedhan’? property possessed by a holding by a husband of
Hindu female to be her the ‘Streedhan’ property
Whether a legal absolute property, whether did not constitute any
partnership is created acquired before or after the legal partnership or co-
between husband and commencement of the ownership between the
wife due to the joint Hindu Succession Act, husband and his wife.
holding of the 1956.  Finally, the court
‘Streedhan’ property? observed that the husband
  Section 27 of the Hindu has virtually no right over
Whether the refusal to Marriage act states that the the property, and stridhan
return the ‘Streedhan’ court may make such is the absolute property of
property by a husband provisions in the decree as a woman.
on demand from his it deems just and proper
wife would amount to with respect to any
Criminal Breach of property presented, at or
Trust under Section about the time of marriage,
405? which may belong jointly
to both the husband and
the wife.

Jagannathan Pillai v S.14 Whether a Hindu Section 14 (1) of The Hindu  The court stated that a
Kunjithapadam Pillai woman is entitled to Succession Act. Hindu woman is entitled
become an absolute to become an absolute
owner of the property The explanation given with the owner of the property
which she had sub-section says that In this sub- which she had alienated
alienated upon its section, “property” includes both upon its reconveyance to
reconveyance to her by movable and immovable property her by the transferee after
the transferee after the acquired by a female Hindu by the enforcement of the
enforcement of the inheritance or devise, or at a Hindu Succession Act,
Hindu Succession Act, partition, or in lieu of 1956 by virtue of sections
1956? maintenance or arrears of 14(1).
maintenance, or by a gift from  The court further
Whether the word any person, whether a relative or explained that when the
“possessed” in Section not, before, at or after her right of women to the
14 talk about the actual marriage, or by her own skill or property is questioned all
possession or the mere exertion, or by purchase or by that has to be shown by
acquisition of a right or prescription, or in any other her then is that she had
interest in the manner whatsoever and also any acquired the property and
property? such property held by her as that she was possessed of
stridhana immediately before the the property.
  The court explained that
commencement of this Act. the expression “possessed
of” used in section 14(1)
pertains to the acquisition
of a right or interest in
the property and not to
physical possession
acquired by force or
without any legal right.

Bhagat Ram v Teja Singh S.14, 15  Did Kipro have a  Section 15 (2) (a) talks  The court held that if the
limited right about any property property held by a female
over the property inherited by a female was inherited from her
that she got in Hindu from her father or father or mother, in the
lieu of the mother. It says that the absence of any son or
property her same shall devolve, in the daughter of the deceased,
deceased absence of any son or including the children of
husband owned daughter of the deceased any pre-deceased son or
in Pakistan? (including the children of daughter, it would only
 Whether the any pre-deceased son or devolve upon the heirs of
property should daughter), to the heirs of the father.
devolve to the father.  The court further stated
Santi’s pre-  Section 14 talks about that even if the female
deceased property possessed by a Hindu who has limited
husband’s Hindu female to be her ownership becomes a full
brother after her absolute property, whether owner by virtue of
death? acquired before or after the Section 14(1) of the Act,
commencement of the the rules of succession
Hindu Succession Act, given under sub-Section
1956. She will hold the 2 of Section 15 can be
property as an absolute, applied.
full owner and not as a
 limited owner.  On the question of
whether Section 15(1) of
the Act will apply or
Section 15(2) of the Act
will apply, the court
observed that Section
15(2) of the Act would
apply only when
inheritance is to the estate
left by father or mother,
in the absence of which
Section 15(1) of the Act
would apply.

Jayalakshmi Ammal v S.14 Whether the property  Section 14 has two objects The court held that when the
Kaliaperumal is given to a female (1) to remove the disability property is given to a female
Hindu, towards her of a female to acquire and Hindu, towards her
maintenance, with hold property as an maintenance, with right of
right of enjoyment absolute owner and (2) to enjoyment restricted till her
restricted till her convert the right of a lifetime, and if she possessed
lifetime forms a part of woman in any estate held the property on the date when
her absolute estate by her as a limited owner Hindu Succession Act came
under section 14? into an absolute owner. into force, then the limited
estate will be enlarged into
Whether the settlement absolute estate.
deed conferred an
absolute right or a It further elucidated that the
limited right in the express language used in the
property? settlement deed, interpreted in
the light of Section 14 of the
Whether the sale deed Hindu Succession Act, would
executed by the first lead to the conclusion that what
 wife is valid? is conferred is only an absolute
estate and not a limited estate.

Consequently, the court upheld

the first wife’s right to dispose
of the property and declared the
sale valid.

It was also held that a wife’s

right to maintenance against her
husband is a preexisting right,
and it does not depend upon the
possession of the property by
the husband, either self-
acquired or, joint family
property.
Omprakash v Radhacharan S.15 The issue in this case Justice S.B Sinha mentioned that
was that by whom the in this case it is not of dispute
property of Narayani that whether the respondents are
shall be inherited legal heirs of Narayani’s
whether by her parents husband Dindayal or not, he
or parents in law? mentions it because if section
Will the self-acquired 15(1) is applied then the
property of a Hindu property will be inherited by the
woman dying intestate legal heirs of Dindayal. Justice
come under the scope S.B Sinha also mentions that it is
of the term “property”, not dispute that whether the
mentioned in Section property of Narayani is inherited
15(1) of Hindu from parents or parent in laws or
Succession Act 1956? husband because it has been
established that it is self-
 Which rule of acquired property, it was
interpretation should be mentioned because if the
applied while property is inherited from
interpreting Section 15 Husband or parent in laws then
of Hindu Succession section 15(2)(B) will apply and
Act 1956, whether the property will be inherited by
literal rule or golden parent in laws of Narayani Or it
rule? the property is inherited from
Narayani’s parents then it will
be inherited by her parents, So,
Section 15(2) (A) and Section 15
(2) (B) is not applicable in this
situation.

15(1) will apply.

Priority to marital home given

and against principles of equity,
justice and good conscience.
Vellikannu v R S.25, 27, What is the effect on Denied under section 25 & 27,
Singaperumal 6, 8 the succession of the be regarded as non-existent as
property of deceased well as heirs. Child and widow
father when the son is have no claim either.
murdered?

Can the sole surviving

male member of
coparcenary claim the
property under the rule
of survivorship when
he has already incurred
disqualification as a
 murderer of his own
father u/s.25?

What is the true legal

effect of s. 25, 27 wrt
s.6,8?

Whether the wife of a

son who murdered his
father entitled to inherit
as widow of the son
and/or as a sole surviror
female member of the
Hindu joint family?
Mamta Dinesh Vakil v Sec.15 It was argued in the Mamta
Bansi S Wadhwa Dinesh Vakil v. Bansi S.
Wadhwa, (2012) case, that the
inequality which exists in
Section 15(1) of the Act is not
based on gender alone, but also
on the family ties, and
considering this reality the
legislature has provided for the
heirs of the husband in the
woman’s property. The Bombay
High Court, in this case,
overruled this reason and added
that the discrimination in the
Section is only based on gender
and not on family ties. The
Court analyzed the succession
scheme/pattern of the male
 intestates under the HSA,1956 to
check the possibility of the
argument. It observed that
keeping the property within the
family was not being taken into
the picture because the property
of a male Hindu would not be
then inherited by his daughters,
sister’s sons, and daughters. It
thus reasoned that the only basis
of this classification was
gender.

Jupudy Parda Sarthy v S.14 Whether the High The wide definition of S.14(1) or S.14(2) applicability:
Pentapati Rama Krishna HSA Court correctly “possessed by” in Section 14(1) Property given to hindu woman
interpreted the terms of may entail that a person is the in lieu of her pre-existing right
Section 14 of the legal owner of a piece of of maintenance, even if by will
Hindu Succession Act, property even though they do not creating only life interest, same
1956 (the “Act”) in have actual possession of it. would get transformed into
reaching the decision Section 14(1) of the 1956 Act absolute right by operation of
that the widow of the states that if a widow was S.14(1)- Even in absence of
deceased P. Venkata granted a share of the marital express words in will that life
Subba Rao obtained an estate in a preliminary judgement interest granted to her in lieu of
absolute interest in the before or at the time of the Act’s her maintenance, if same can be
property via the passing, but had not yet gained gathered from nature of
operation of Section 14 real possession as part of a final arrangements made in will for
of the Act? decree, she would be regarded to her enjoyment of the property
be in possession of the property. and if no disputed the
The law prohibits the possession arrangement pursuant to which
of a rank trespasser without a she continued to enjoy the
right or title, therefore the property in lieu of maintenance,
widow’s ownership must be then no pleading and further
 under a claim, right, or title. In proof required to substantiate the
Section 14(2), “restricted estate” fact.
includes both the limited interest
indicated in Section 14(1) and
any additional transferee
limitations.
Clarence Pais & Ors v UOI 213 ISA ‘Is Section 213 of the Post-verdict analysis: The section solely applies to
Indian Succession Act, Hindu sects from the colonial
1925 unconstitutional The Law Commission that was empire's former 'A' states.
and discriminatory headed by Dr A.R. Lakshmanan Hindus from all other regions
against the Indian in its 209th report recommended can exercise their rights through
Christians?’. the exclusion of Section 213. legatees or executor wills
However, it seems as though it without the need for probate. On
whether the Kerala has been put in cold storage by the surface, this appears to be
state amendment, the Ministry of Law and Justice. discriminatory based on place of
which rendered probate birth and a violation of Article
unnecessary for Through the 2002 amendment 14 of the Constitution.
Christians testamentary
introduced on 27th May the terms
succession in Kerala The Supreme Court established
“or Christian” were inserted right
was applicable to the that the provisions of Section
after the Mohammedans in the
property of a Christian 213 are not discriminatory based
sub-section (2) of the ISA,
situated in other states on place of birth or religion.
excusing them from the
where the un-amended They demonstrated how it is not
requirement of probate for wills
version of section 213 limited to Christians and extends
and codicils, as was done in the
of ISA was in force. to people of other faiths.
Kerela Amendment Act 1 of
1997.
Kavita Kanwar v Mrs 61, Appellant filed for An unfair disposition of property The SC deemed that there was
Pamela Mehta 63(c), probate under S.276 or an unjust exclusion of legal enough evidence to consider
81, 89, which was challenged. heirs , particularly the suspicious circumstances
276 dependents is regarded as a surrounding the will. The court
Whether the will of the suspicious circumstance. was not satisfied that the will
descendant is proper Appellant has veen unable to had been the last wish of the
 prove why the testatrix thought it testatrix in consideration of the
and valid? proper to leave her widowed succession of her estate.
daughter in the heap of
Whether the will of uncertainty. The SC found enough reason to
descendant is forged affirm the material findings of
and fabricated? In cases of suspicion, the courts the trial court and HC. It cannot
look at the various allegations be said that the testatrix
Whether the petitioner surrounding the will. In this case, executed and signed the
is entitled to grant of the court found that the document in question after
probate? authenticity of the will in order having understood the meaning,
to ascertain the final wish of the effect and purpose of the
testator. Suspicious contents. Appeal was dismissed.
circumstances shrouding the will
must be eliminated to get Suspicious circumstances:
probate. Form of the will, role played by
beneficiary, unreliable attesting
witnesses, unnatural distribution
of assets.
Narunissa v Sheikh Abdul Whether Sheikh Abdul The widely accepted position is Approval must be given
Hamid Ghani’s will, gives the that a bequest to an heir, whether following the death. It is not
first defendant the in whole or in part, is void unless binding on the share of the other
exclusive title to Item I it is approved by another heir or heirs without their approval
in Schedule A? is it heirs and whoever approves, the because it is an invalid bequest
legally legitimate in bequest is only valid to that in the heir’s favour.
the absence of express amount and binds that heir’s
approval from other portion.
heirs, and what impact
does it have on the
decree under appeal?
Hafeeza Bibi v Shaikh Faird If an oral declaration is An oral gift fulfils all the A deed of gift executed by a
reduced to writing, essentials of a valid gift and Muslim is not an instrument
hence its complete and effecting, creating or making the
 should it be registered? irrevocable. However, the owner gift but a mere piece of
may record the transaction in evidence.
Whether an writing.
unregistered gift deed All the three perquisites of valid
is a valid gift and When a gift could be made gifts are fulfilled; the gift deed is
confer any title upon orally, its nature and character is a form of mere declaration and
Mohd. Yakub? not changed because of it having not an instrument of gift.
been made by a written
document. Property must continue to be in
possession of Mohd. Yakub that
he received from his father as
the gift.
Mussa Miya Walad Was there a valid gift Donor announced a gift of Tiral court held that there was no
Mahammed Shaffi v Kadar in question? Was there properties to his minor grandsons valid gift but that certain letters
Bax a will? living with him, without written by Abdul Rasul
delivering the possession nor constituted a valid will and
relinquishing the control. operated as a bequest of legal
portion of the deceased’s
property.

HC letters didn’t constitute a

will

Privy Council confirmed that the

trial judge’s order for partition
and declared that Kadar Bax was
entitled to 3/8th share in property.
He was not a guardian within the
meaning of exception, hence gift
was invalid. The father of the
plaintiff was still alive and in his
presence the maternal
 grandfather can never be the
guardian.
Khurran Sannath Society & declare Shariat Law Petitioners pleaded that Shariat The Court referred Maharshi
ors v UOI applicable in regard to law discriminates among Indian Avadhesh v. Union of India
inheritance of property citizens on the ground of sex, as it 1994 where it was held that “the
by Muslim women as provides that if a Muslim father respondent cannot be directed to
unconstitutional and dies leaving only daughters, those enact Shariat Law as these are
void for being violative daughters will not get share the all matters for legislature”.
of Articles 14, 15, 19, equivalent to that of the share she The Court held that the issue of
21 and 25 of the would get if she was a male and modification of personal law is
Constitution will have to share properties not something which can be
along with distant relatives of the adjudicated by this Court in a
deceased, whereas the male child Public Interest Litigation and has
takes the entire property and has to be left for the Legislature to
to share it only with the spouse consider the issues raised and
and parents of the deceased. frame a competent legislation
Religious practices have to be thereof. Accordingly, the Court
made more practicable and dismissed the PIL challenging
workable to adapt itself to the the constitutionality of Shariat
changing needs of the Society. law.
The Counsel for the respondent
pleaded that for challenging the
Shariat law which has got
statutory recognition, a legislation
has to be brought into by the
competent legislature.
Khairunnisabegum v The issue was to decide According to the Table of The Supreme Court accordingly
Nafeesunisa Begum the inheritance status of Sharers, a full sister is a sharer if granted one-third share to the
the sisters in the there is no child or child of a son, full sister and one-third share
presence of the widow howsoever low, and at the same each to both the daughters.
and daughter of the time shows that a full sister in Placing reliance on the clear
deceased. default of a full brother takes the pronouncement of law by the
 residue, if any, if there be a Supreme Court as corroborated
daughter or daughters, etc. by the observations of the High
Court of Jammu and Kashmir
The Court observed that a sister and in Mulla, the Bombay High
has an interest in the property of Court in Khairunnisabegum
the deceased and even if she does concluded that after the
not receive the share as a sharer, allocation of shares to the
she receives it as a residuary. It sharers, ie to the widow and the
accordingly held that a sister has daughter, the residue passes on
a residuary interest in the estate to the full sister as residuary.
even in the presence of a wife and The interpretation of the court is
children. The Supreme Court logical and justified. A full sister
considered the views of Mulla is either a sharer or residuary in
and observed that if there are no a given circumstance. If she
sharers, or if residue is left after could not claim as a sharer due
satisfying their claim, residuaries to absence of conditions attached
also inherit in the order set forth but is a residuary due to the
in the Table. fulfillment of other conditions,
she then inherits as a residuary.
Mary Roy v State of Kerala Whether the provisions It also held that the TSA was
The court held that some
of intestate succession repealed after the Part B State
sections of the TSA were
in the Travencore Laws Act came into force. ISA
discriminatory against women
Christian Succession has a much wider scope as
by not providing them an equal
Act of 1916 were compared to any region specific
share in the property of the
violative of Article 14 succession law, thus ISA applied
intestate and were declared
and 15(6)? Whether to Travancore area also. The court
unconstitutional and void of
Part B State (Laws) gave a general law on intestate
being violative of Art 14 and 15.
Act, 1951 after coming succession by repealing the
into force repealed the discriminatory act and declared
Travencore Christian the right to property as an equal
Succession Act, 1916? right for both men and women.
Whether the members The court opined the property that
 of the Indian Christian will be given to legal heirs if in
Community in case a man dies intestate.
Travancore were
goverened by the TSA
or the ISA of 1925?
Abdul Hafiz Beg v Sahebbi Whether the gift was The mere accident of death, The theory of marz-ul-maut,
made by the ailing which is a certainty in human also known as Mohammedan
person while under the existence, is not sufficient to Law, determined that three
apprehension of the invalidate the provisions. Basic things were required. (1)
death and further jurisprudence and judicial disease, (ii) the anticipation of a
whether in such ailing pronouncements about this terminal outcome, and (iii)
he met his death? theory make it abundantly specific physical impairments
evident that the English phrase that show the severity of the
When is the marz-ul- “death-illness” does not illness.
maut legislation adequately convey the meaning
applicable? of the word “marz-ul-maut.” This The second criterion, i.e., the
notion seems to include a disease anticipation of a fatal outcome,
or ailment leading to death or might be inferred from the
resulting in the death of the presence of the first and third
affected individual. Because of conditions, since the
this, the evidence of death. Its incapacitates listed, with the
cause and the situation of the possible exception of an
individual have their own distinct inability to stand to pray, are
importance. not infallible signs of death-
illness.
There is a great deal of concern
over the decline of human All of this conclusively
faculties and cognitive abilities. demonstrates that the Exhibit
As the conclusion of the voyage D-3 donation complies with the
approaches, such a process may law of marz-ul-maut as defined
begin and grow more evident. by Mohamedan prospects and
Therefore, it is evident that all cannot be sanctioned.
 the conditions surrounding the Consequently, the appeal is
actual act of disposition, unsuccessful and rejected.
including the physical and
psychological state of the sick
person, the nature of the disease,
and the closeness to death, must
be considered.
Gurupad Khandappa v 6, 8 In terms of Sections 6 According to Section 6 of the The petitioner argued that if a
Hirabai Khandappa HSA and 8 of the Succession Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the division had been made between
Magdum Act, what portion husband’s interest in the him and his two sons during
would a Hindu widow coparcenary property would pass Khandappa’s lifetime, she
receive? through survivorship to the would have earned a 1/4th share
surviving coparcenary members at his passing and that
rather than in accordance with Khandappa’s 1/4th share may
the Act’s provisions. fall on six sharers upon his
passing, entitling her to a 1/24th
The proviso to section 6 takes share.
effect if the husband passes away
leaving a widow and a daughter, The Supreme Court held that
and the standard rule is reversed. the heirs’ share must be
The proviso provided that the determined because they have
husband’s interest in the split apart and received a share
coparcenary property would pass in the partition that took place
under the Act through intestate during the deceased’s lifetime.
succession rather than
survivorship. The Court held that the deemed
partition could not be limited to
In November 1952, Hirabai filed the time period immediately
a special civil complaint stating preceding the death of the
that her husband and their two deceased coparcenary and that
children were the rightful owners all the consequences that flow
 of a 7/24 stake in two homes, a from a real partition must be
land, two stores, and personal logically worked out.
property.
According to the court, the split
had to be accepted as a firm fact
that could not be changed
afterwards.
Madan Mohan Singh v if a man and woman are living together for a long time as husband and wife, though never
Rajnikant married, there would be a presumption of marriage and their children could not be called to be
illegitimate. Held that the live-in relationship if continued for such a long time, will be
presumed to be a type of marriage between the parties, which the appellants failed to rebut.
Prakash v Phulvati 6 HSA Whether the The rights of coparceners under The Supreme Court held that an
amendment is the Amendment Act, 2005 apply amendment of a substantive
applicable even if the to the living daughters of living provision is always prospective
Respondent’s father coparceners as on 9th September unless either expressly or by
had died after the act 2005, irrespective of the birth necessary intendment it is
came into existence? date of daughters. retrospective.

Whether the Suman Surpur v Amar gave the In the instant case there was no
Amendment Act can be opposite verdict holding the right express or intended stipulation
applied to the partition to be retrospective. which would make the
effectuated without the Amendment Act retrospective
decree of court? in its application and by virtue
of the Amendment Act, right to
Whether the coparcenary property would be
Amendment Act can be available only to ‘living
applied daughters’ of ‘living
retrospectively? coparceners’ on 9 September
2005.
Vaddeboyina Tulsamma v Whether Tulasamma Section 14 (1) of The Hindu The court explained that the
Vaddeboyina Sesha Reddi has the right to alienate Succession Act 1956 states that compromise by which the
the property after the any property possessed by a properties were allotted to the
passing of HSA , female Hindu, whether acquired appellant Tulasamma in lieu of
1956 , even after the before or after the her maintenance would be taken
terms of the commencement of this Act, shall out of the ambit of Section
compromise state be held by her as full owner 14(2) and would fall squarely
otherwise? thereof and not as a limited within Section 14(1).
owner. The explanation given
Whether the instrument with the sub-section says that In The court held that the
of compromise under this sub-section, “property” in properties in suit were allotted
which the properties lieu of maintenance or arrears of to the appellant Tulasumma
were given in lieu of maintenance, immediately before under a compromise certified
maintenance falls the commencement of this Act. by the Court and appellant had
within Section 14(1) or taken only a life interest in the
14(2) of the 1956 Act? Section 14 (2) of The Hindu properties and there was a clear
Succession Act, 1956 states that restriction prohibiting her from
Whether a Hindu nothing contained in sub-section alienating the properties.
widow has a right to (1) shall apply to any property
property in lieu of her acquired by way of gift or under It was also held that that despite
maintenance, and if a will or any other instrument or these restrictions, she continued
such a right is under a decree or order of a civil to be in possession of the
conferred on her court or under an award where properties till 1956 when the
subsequently by way the terms of the gift, will or other Act of 1956 came into force;
of maintenance it instrument or the decree, order or and that the alienations which
would amount to mere award prescribe a restricted she had made in 1960 and 1961
recognition of a pre- estate in such property were after she had acquired an
existing right or a absolute interest in the
conferment of a new properties and therefore they
title so as to fall are valid.
squarely within Section
14(2) of the 1956 Act?