HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956

Facts: Special Officer designated under the Act allowed application of Petitioner/landlord for eviction of Respondent/tenant holding that tenant denied title of landlord and committed default in payment of rent to real owner. On appeal, court set aside eviction decree on ground that title of Petitioners to land was not established and therefore question of denial of title of landlord and failure in payment of rent to them did not arise. Petition was filed to schedule that land absolutely belonged to third party/real owner who executed registered lease deed in favour of tenant. By virtue of settlement deed executed by real owner's husband and operation of Section 14(1) of the Act, wife became full owner.

Held: Deceased/husband of real owner settled properties on his wife with rights of enjoyment during her life time in recognition of her pre-existing right to maintenance. Mere fact that mere was no express reference in settlement-deed to maintenance of wife or her pre-existing right to claim maintenance is not material factor. There are no express words that income which real owner would get from lands was meant for her maintenance. But it is implicit that one of objects of settlement was only to provide sufficient income to wife for her maintenance. It cannot be said that property given to wife was de hors her antecedent right to get maintenance. Impugned orders were upheld. Petition dismissed.

Facts: The Appellant herein and one Gourammal and one R. Ayyasamy are the children of one P.L. Ranganathan. The Appellant's mother died long ago and father also followed his mother. His sister namely Gourammal was working as an Adviser at Chinmaya Vidyalaya Matriculation Higher Secondary School at Palayankottai and retired from service and died on 29.9.2005 at Kavundampalayam village, Coimbatore. The Appellant's younger brother R. Ayyasamy also died on 15.9.2005. Both brother and sister of the Appellant were not married and they have no issues. Such that, the Appellant herein is the only surviving Legal Heir of said R. Ayyasamy and Gourammal as per Indian Succession Act.

Held: Only class one heirs that is the brothers/sisters by full blood are entitled to succeed the estate of the deceased persons. Accordingly, when the Appellant being the brother by full blood, he alone is entitled for the said money and not the Respondent herein.

Facts: Rukmani Ammal executed a Settlement Deed dated 17.03.1953 in favour of Deivayanai Ammal bequeathing the suit property for life in favour of Deivayanai Ammal and vested remainder absolutely in favour of the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 6. According to the plaintiff, even if the Settlement Deed is construed as though it conveys absolute right to Deivayanai Ammal, the plaintiff and the defendants 2 to 6 are entitled, under Hindu Succession Law, to inherit as heirs of Deivayanai Ammal. If the Settlement Deed is construed as document conveying life interest to Deivayanai Ammal as claimed by the plaintiff, absolute vested remainder in favour of the plaintiff and the defendants 2 to 6, the plaintiff and the defendants 2 to 6 alone are entitled to the estate of Rukmani Ammal after the death of Deivayanai Ammal. Deivayanai Ammal was enjoying and administering the property till her life time, after the property being assessed in her name. The 1st defendant, in collusion with the defendants 2 & 3, had fraudulently prepared a Will with evil motive and with a view to deprive the plaintiff and defendants 4 to 6 of the lawful shares in the property. According to the plaintiff, the Will is a forged and fictitious document. According to the 1st defendant, Deivayanai Ammal is a house wife and the 1st defendant had performed the marriage of his daughters, by borrowing money by mortgaging the suit property, along with his wife and the 1st defendant alone had settled the dues out of his own income, without any assistance from anyone. Even during the life time of Deivayanai Ammal, the 1st defendant had given good education to his daughters. After his marriage, he was maintaining his father-in-law's family and his sister-in-law out of his self earnings. The marriage of his wife's sister was also celebrated and performed by the 1st defendant out of his self earnings. The 1st defendant's family was maintained only by him and not by Deivayanai Ammal at any point of time. The 1st defendant performed marriage of his sister-in-law in 1953. For that purpose, the suit property was mortgaged to one Shanmugam Chettiar for a sum of Rs. 700/- by the mother-in-law of the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant alone repaid the entire loan with accrued interest to the said Shanmugam Chettiar and redeemed the property out of his own funds. In this background, his mother-in-law Rukmani Ammal had settled the property in favour of his wife Deivayanai Ammal.

Held: So far as the application of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is concerned, the property was settled in favour of Deivayanai Ammal under Ex. B1 Settlement Deed dated 17.03.1953. Under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, the female's limited interest would automatically be enlarged into an absolute one by force of Section 14 and the restrictions placed, if any, under the document would have to be ignored. Ex. B1 Settlement Deed was executed prior to the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. After the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act in the year 1956, the suit property settled in favour of Deivayanai Ammal under Ex. B1 Settlement Deed, even if it is construed as life interest in favour of Deivayanai Ammal would automatically be enlarged into absolute one by force of Section 14(1) and the restrictions placed, if any, under the document would have to be ignored.

Facts: Petitioner in the present case is seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Life Insurance Corporation of India (in short 'LIC') and its authorities to pay the death claim arising out of life insurance policy no. 517337070 which was obtained by one Prem Kumar Yadav @ Bablu Kumar (since deceased). It is the case of the petitioner that while taking the life insurance policy, the said Prem Kumar Yadav @ Bablu Kumar had nominated his mother Mahasundari Devi (respondent no. 5) and by virtue of that nomination now after death of life assured the respondent no. 5 is claiming the entire insurance proceeds. The petitioner has a grievance because after obtaining the policy the said Prem Kumar Yadav @ Bablu Kumar had solemnized marriage with the present petitioner on 22.04.2015. The petitioner is claiming herself a legally wedded wife of the deceased life assured and is looking for 50% of the proceeds of the death claim.

Held: Respondent No. 5 could not claim 100% of policy proceeds by virtue of nomination under Section 39 of Act. Petitioner as well as Respondent No. 5 were class-I legal heirs. Therefore, Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 5 are jointly entitled to receive claim proceeds arising out of death of life assured. Respondent authorities were directed to pay entire proceeds to Petitioner as well as Respondent No. 5 by dividing the same equally between them.

Facts: The present lis pertains to inheritance to estate of Sh. Karni Singh Rathore who died on 28.03.2011 at Bombay. The respondents/plaintiffs claimed inheritance to Sh. Karni Singh on the allegations that Sh. Karni Singh Rathore performed marriage with plaintiff No. 2 on 22.07.1996 and out of their wedlock, Harshwardhan Rathore plaintiff No. 1 was born on 24.10.1997. The appellant/defendant is stated to be keep of Kami Singh Rathore, therefore, is not entitle to inheritance to Sh. Kami Singh Rathore. It is averred by the plaintiffs that they approached the patwari halka to get mutation of inheritance entered and sanctioned in their favour. Mutation No. 9179 was entered but later appellant/defendant filed objections before Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Bhattu Kalan. She (appellant) claimed herself as the only legal heir and representative of deceased Kami Singh Rathore. The mutation was declared disputed and referred to SDO Civil, Fatehabad. The SDO Civil sanctioned the mutation in favour of appellant/defendant. The respondents/plaintiffs filed an appeal before the District Collector, Fatehabad. Vide order dated 23.10.2013, the matter was adjourned sine die and parties were directed to get the matter of inheritance decided from Civil Court. The defendant is bent upon to interfere into peaceful possession of plaintiffs over the property of deceased Kami Singh Rathore. Hence the suit.

Held: If the appellant being a Hindu wife prior to conversion of Kami Singh Rathore to Islam is not entitle to inherit to estate of Sh. Kami Singh Rathore, in my considered opinion, she is not competent to challenge the right of any third person to inherit to the estate of deceased Kami Singh Rathore. the appellant has been held entitle to 1/2 share in suit property by the Court holding that Kami Singh Rathore never converted to Islam. The respondents/plaintiffs appear to have not challenged findings of the Courts that Kami Singh Rathore did not convert to Islam nor with regard to entitlement of the appellant to 1/2 share in the suit property, so this Court has not adverted to non entitlement of appellant to any share in suit property even though she has sought to contend that Kami Singh converted to Islam as per document relied upon by the respondents/plaintiffs.

Facts: Plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of agreement of sale. Trial Court decreed suit filed by Plaintiff. Aggrieved against said judgment and decree, appeal was made in High Court. High Court dismissed appeal by holding that property was held by wife of father of Defendant No.1 and after her death, suit property devolved on father of Defendant No.1 and Defendant No. 1 under Section 15 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Hence, present appeal.

Held: It was clear that there was no possibility of erroneous beliefs in the mind of the Plaintiffs as to title position in the property. No doubt about it that Defendant No. 1 had acted as a power of attorney, but at the same time, did not act in his capacity as the owner of the property. The ownership of Defendant No.1 was known to the Plaintiffs. In spite of that the Plaintiffs have not set u the case to bind the share of Defendant No.1. They had not pleaded in the plaint that Defendant No.1 owned the property. There was no whisper as to the title of Defendant No.1in the plaint. They needed to plead the facts to attract the plea of estoppel. That had not been done. Thus, the agreement which had been executed was not concerning share of Defendant No. 1, but of late father of Defendant No.1 as his power of attorney.

Facts: The petitioner claims to be the son of Samir Kumar Banerjee, who in turn, claims to be the heir of Amarendra Kumar Banerjee with regard to a piece of land recorded in his name in the revenue records and the authorities calling upon Amarendra Kumar Banerjee and Samir Kumar Banerjee to submit succession certificate with regard to their claim.

Held: The Court finds that the authorities were well within their jurisdiction and also correct in calling upon the respective parties to produce succession certificate so that they can proceed in the matter in accordance with law. This was necessary as it is the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction which can go into the factual aspects where a person claims to be the successor/heir of any person since there is provision of adducing evidence and also calling of records from various places and then giving a finding based on such evidence before the Court.

Facts: The conflict arose between the two contradictory verdicts pertaining to the terms and conditions for the retrospective effect of the coparcenary rights of the daughter in her father's property.

Held: The provisions contained in substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confer status of coparcener on the daughter born before or after amendment in the same manner as son with same rights and liabilities. Since the right in coparcenary was by birth, it was not necessary that father coparcener should be living as on date of commencement of Amendment Act.

Facts: One Moola Gounder along with his two sons Palanisamy (Defendant No. 1) and Arumugam (Defendant No. 2) formed a coparcenary which owned the suit property. Moola Gounder died interstate on 28.12.1971 leaving behind no Will. On his death, 1/3 of the property went to each son and remaining one third which was the share of Moola Gounder in the coparcenary was to be inherited by his wife (Defendant No. 5), two sons, (Defendant Nos. 1 and 2) and three daughters viz., the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 3 and 4. On 06.12.1989, his youngest daughter filed a suit claiming that the property falling to the share of Moola Gounder which was to be inherited by his six legal heirs had never been partitioned and therefore, it be partitioned in accordance with law. Written statement was filed by the two sons in which it was mentioned that after the death of Moola Gounder, the daughters i.e., the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 and the mother (Defendant No. 5) had jointly executed a registered release deed relinquishing their rights in the property in favour of the two sons, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2. It was also urged that in the said release deed the Plaintiff who was a minor at that time was represented by her mother, who was her natural guardian, and the mother had executed the release deed on behalf of the Plaintiff. Similarly, Defendant No. 1 had acted as the guardian of Defendant No. 2 who was also a minor at that time and signed the release deed on behalf of both of the sons. After Defendant No. 2 attained majority, a registered partition deed was executed between the two brothers, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, on 24.04.1980 and thereafter, it is only Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 who are in possession of the said property. It was also averred that the partition deed was witnessed by the husband of the Plaintiff and she could not feign ignorance of the same. It was also alleged that the amount mentioned in the release deed had been given to the sisters.

Held: Though the Plaintiff was a minor when the release deed dated 10.03.1973 was executed, she was not of tender age but was aged about 17 years. On 24.04.1980, a partition took place between Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (the two brothers) and this partition included all the properties comprising the property now claimed by the Plaintiff. The partition deed dated 24.04.1980, which was duly registered, was signed by the husband of the Plaintiff as an attesting witness. Few days later, on 30.04.1980 the two brothers executed a settlement deed in favour of their mother, Defendant No. 5 which was also signed by the Plaintiff's husband as witness. After this partition, the two brothers remained in possession of the property and executed various transfers from this property. Therefore, it is difficult to believe that the Plaintiff was not aware of the various transfers.