Skip to main content

Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act doesn’t apply to Dayabhaga school law

In RFA 11/2017, SMT KALPITA DEB vs SMT KAJORI DEB, the appellant had sought her equal share in the suit property. But the defendants contended that she relinquished her right over the land as per an alleged agreement dated 25-11-2004 which was assailed as forged by the appellant. The trail court however agreed with the defendants and that the suit was not maintainable, purportedly on the basis of the proviso to sub-section (1) and sub-section (5) of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act (as amended in 2005) since as per the said provision any partition or disposition or alienation or testamentary disposition of property having taken place before 20th December, 2004 have been excluded from the purview of the amended section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, and that the amended provision of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act was prospective.

On appeal the High Court observed that Section 6(1) relates to the interest in coparcenary property only. So far as the general rule of succession or devolution in respect of the property of a Hindu dying intestate or the Dayabhaga school of law is concerned, the amended Hindu Succession Act, 2005 has not made ay change except deleting the provision of Section 23 and 24 of the 1956 Act. Therefore, the amended provision of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, has nothing to do with the succession to the property, governed by the Dayabhaga law or the general rule of succession under the Act.

The court further opined that the plaintiff had raised the issue of fraud which is ignored by the trial cover and even without going into the merit of the allegation, when the plea of fraud was raised in respect of the transaction, learned trial court could not have dismissed the suit on preliminary issue of maintainability taking recourse to sub- section (5) or proviso to Section 6(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 2005. The object of sub- section (5) or the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 6 was to given finality to the transaction having taken place prior to 20.12.2004. But the provision of sub-section (5) or proviso to sub- section (1) of Section 6 cannot be construed to have excluded any fake transaction. Therefore, when the plea of fraud was raised, in respect of any transaction effected prior to the 2005 amendment came into force, the suit cannot be disposed on preliminary issue taking recourse to the proviso of Section 6(1) or sub-section (5) of the Section.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Vanishing promoters and languishing shareholders

Over Rs 60,000 crore of shareholders’ wealth is stuck in 1,450 companies suspended by the stock exchanges. More importantly, near 100 per cent pledging of promoter holding appears to be common in many of these companies. This, almost rules out any chance of the companies bouncing back. The suspension is for non-compliance of the listing norms. Vanishing Companies - Definition As per the definition stipulated by SEBI, any listed company, which raised moneythrough initial public offer and, thereafter, stopped operations, did not file returnseither with the RoC or SEBI and did not exist on the registered premises wastermed as vanishing.There are provisions under Companies Act under which companies are termedvanishing companies on satisfying certain conditions. it is provided a companywould be deemed to be a vanishing company, if it satisfies all the conditions given below : a) Failed to file returns with Registrar of Companies (ROC) for a period of two years; b) Failed to fil
3 comments
Read more