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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more