Family Law Ii

Front 1

Hayatuddin v. Abdul Gani, AIR 1976 Bom. 23

Back 1

Subsequent partition of musha gift validates. In part possession case, no formality reqd.

Front 2

Abdul Hafiz Beg v. Sahebbi, AIR 1975 Bom. 165

Back 2

Marz-ul-maut - irrevocable, 1/3rd limit - sense of imminent death + actual death

Front 3

Commissioner of Gift Tax v. Abdul Karim, AIR 1991 SC 1847

Back 3

Donatio mortis causa - movable, no limit, revokable

Front 4

Hafeeza Bibi and Ors. v. Shaikh Farid (dead) by L.Rs. and Ors., 2011(5)SCALE371

Back 4

Valid hiba = Declaration, acceptance, delivery, no reg. reqd.

Front 5

Miss R. Kantha v. UOI, AIR 2010 Kant 27

Back 5

Per incuriam - 6(1)( c) proviso ultra vires art 14 - no cutoff date

Front 6

Prakash and Ors. v. Phulavati and Ors., MANU/SC/1241/2015

Back 6

2005 Am not retrospective - cutoff applies

Front 7

Uttam v. Suabhag Singh, Supreme Court, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2360 of 2016

Back 7

Post succession u/8 or s.6 proviso, no longer JFP

Front 8

Ganduri Koteshwaramma and Anr. v. Chakiri Yanadi and Anr. AIR2012SC169

Back 8

Preliminary decree does not effect partition - future laws cause fluctuation

Front 9

Smt. Swaran Lata and Ors. v. Shri Kulbhushan Lal and Ors. 2014(141)DRJ205 \

Back 9

Deemed partition does not crystallize shares, will fluctuate under future law

Front 10

Gurupad Khandappa Magdum v. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum, AIR 1978 SC 1239

Back 10

Share devolving by IS in addition to widow's ind. Share

Front 11

CWT v. Chander Sen, AIR 1986 SC 1753

Back 11

Property devolved u/8 is separate

Front 12

Shalini Sumant Raut & Ors v. Milind Sumant Raut & Ors. and Dr. Gautam Manohar Raut & Anr. 2013(5)BomCR430

Back 12

Upheld locus of coparcener's male descendants to implead themselves in partition suit

Front 13

Santosh Popat Chavan v. Sulochana Rajiv, High Court of Bombay, Second Appeal Nos. 119 and 405/2013 decided on December 12, 2014

Back 13

Widow can claim partition w/o other coparceners claiming

Front 14

Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar, AIR 1985 SC 628

Back 14

Husband merely possesses stridhan, refusal to return/repay is misappropriation

Front 15

Jagannathan Pillai v. Kunjithapadam Pillai, AIR 1987 SC 1493

Back 15

Widow re-acquisition pre-enforcement - in possession -> absolute right

Front 16

Jayalakshmi Ammal v. Kaliaperumal, AIR 2014 Mad 185

Back 16

Settlement to cover pre-existing maintenance obligation -> absolute right

Front 17

Vaddeboyina Tulasamma v. Vaddeboyina Sesha Reddi, AIR 1977 SC 1944

Back 17

Compromise decree for saali's maintenance - alienated - antecedent rt. -> 14(1)

Front 18

Bhagat Ram v. Teja Singh, AIR 2002 SC 1

Back 18

Brother in law claiming deceased widow's prop - s 15(1) - alienee interest upheld

Front 19

Omprakash v. Radhacharan, 2009(7) SCALE 51

Back 19

Women's SAP devolves under 15(1)

Front 20

Vellikannu v. R. Singaperumal and Anr. MANU/SC/0367/2005; AIR2005SC2587

Back 20

Murderer treated as never existing - descendants disqualified

Front 21

Musa Miya v. Kadar Bax

Back 21

Exception to hiba delivery rule - husband, father to minor (guardian accepts)

Front 22

Valia Umma v P. N. Kumhamu

Back 22

Hiba not saved by reg - Mother can accept hiba deliver minor daughter pre-puberty + no guardian sitch

Front 23

SBI v Ghamandi Ram

Back 23

HJF is not a legal person, but a body of individuals.

Front 24

CIT v G Lakshminarayanan

Back 24

HUF is different from coparcenary. Single coparcener with dependents can form an HUF.

Front 25

Moro Vishvanath v Ganesh Vithal

Back 25

Partition cannot be demanded by one more than four degrees removed from the last owner.

Front 26

Mohd. Hussain Khan v Babu Kishva Nandan

Back 26

Property inherited from maternal grandfather is not coparcenary property. Holder may dispose as he likes.

Front 27

Mudaliar v Mudaliar

Back 27

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.

Front 28

Dipo v. Wassan Singh

Back 28

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.

Front 29

CWT v. Sridharan and v. Rosa Maria Steinbicher

Back 29

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.

Front 30

Revanasidappa v. Mallikarjun

Back 30

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

Front 31

Dev Kishan v. Ram Kishan

Back 31

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.

Front 32

Nopany Investments v. Santokh Singh

Back 32

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.

Front 33

Hunooman Persaud v. Mussumat Babooee

Back 33

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.

Front 34

Balmukand v. Kamlawati

Back 34

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.

Front 35

Sujata Sharma v. Manu Gupta

Back 35

After the 2005 amendment, the eldest daughter, being a coparcener, can act as the karta.

Front 36

Shreya Vidyarthi v. Ashok Vidyarthi

Back 36

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.

Front 37

Kuppayee v. Raja Gounder

Back 37

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

Front 38

Raghavamma v. Chenchamma

Back 38

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.

Front 39

Kakumanu Peda Subayya v. Kakumanu Akkamma

Back 39

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.

Front 40

Ghadge v. Ghadge

Back 40

After property has devolved by succession, an adopted child cannot claim any share.

Front 41

Puttrangamma v. Ranganna

Back 41

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.

Front 42

Kesharbai v. Tarabai

Back 42

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.

Front 43

Brij Narain v. Mangla Prasad

Back 43

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).

Front 44

Shendev v. Shegade

Back 44

Person favored by will must prove it. It must be written, signed and made in the presence of two attesting witnesses.

Front 45

Tagore v. Tagore

Back 45

Will creating indefinite life interests in favor of unborn descendants is invalid - primogeniture opposed to Hindu law n

Front 46

Dhannulal v. Ganeshram

Back 46

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