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

How to know if a temple/mandir is Public or Private?

In Shri Ram Mandir Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant had contended before the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir in question is a private temple established by predecessor Gurus and that the properties had been given to the suit temple as Inam and Ram Das was not a mere pujari but the Mahant of the said temple entitled to manage and administer the temple and the suit properties. The appeal was against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had declared the temple as public and the suit property vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple. The Supreme Court agreeing with the High Court noted the following points :- 1) In 2013, Madhya Pradesh Government published a Directory containing names of all public temples in District Ujjain updating till 31.12.2012, wherein the said temple has been shown as a public temple and Bajrang Das and Ram Das are only shown to be the pujaris. 2)...
Post a Comment
Read more

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
Post a Comment
Read more

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