Skip to main content

Stepson Of A Hindu Dying Intestate Can’t Claim Inheritance Under Hindu Succession Act

In Yansh Bahadur Sabhajeet Yadav  in the matter between Dudhnath Kallu Yadav vs. Ramashankar Ramadhar Yadav and ors., during the pendency of the suit, one of the defendants (No.14), who was said to be one of the coparceners having right to the ancestral property, died and a third-party applicant, named Yansh Bahadur Sabhajit Yadav who claimed to be the stepson of defendant no.14 took out the present application.

It was argued on behalf of the applicant that he deserves to be impleaded as a party in the matter just like the other heirs. The applicant also sought separate share and possession of the 1/9th share that the original defendant (no.14) had in these properties and also a stay on redevelopment of three buildings which are a part of the suit property.

The applicant, who appeared in person, relied on the definition of ‘child’ under clause 15B of Section 2 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which includes ‘stepchild’ as well as adopted child. He also submitted that since the word ‘son’ is not defined under the Hindu Succession Act, the definition of ‘child’ under the Income Tax Act should be used.

The court rejecting the claim of the applicant held that rather than the IT Act, under these circumstances where any definition is  lacking under an act, the definition provided by the General Clauses Act should be applied and as per the said act the expression “son” includes only an adopted son and not a step­son. Even otherwise “son” as understood in common parlance means a natural son born to a person after marriage. It is the direct blood relationship, which is the essence of the term “son” as normally understood.

 Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/stepson-hindu-dying-intestate-cant-claim-inheritance-hindu-succession-act-bombay-hc-read-judgment/

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more