21.

Mohan Singh v Rajni Kant

E (Madan Mohan Singh and others) were challenging S and D’s legitimacy, arguing that
A and B were never married, and therefore, S and D had no right to inherit A’s property.

• E claimed that S and D were not A’s legal heirs and presented documents to prove it.

• E argued that B (Shakuntala) was born in 1941, but S (Rajni Kant) was born in 1940,
which is logically impossible and suggested that the documents submitted were unreliable.

Legal Issues:

• Does a long-term live-in relationship between A and B create a presumption of

marriage?
• Are C and D (children from this relationship) legitimate and entitled to inherit A’s
property?
• Can E’s evidence (showing incorrect birthdates) disprove the claim of marriage
and inheritance?

Court's Ruling:

Presumption of Marriage:

If A and B lived together as a couple for many years, the law assumes they were married,
unless someone proves otherwise.

E failed to provide strong proof that A and B were not married.

Legitimacy of C and D:

Since the relationship between A and B is presumed to be a marriage, C and D are

legitimate children and have inheritance rights.

Unreliable Evidence by E:

The documents provided by E were inconsistent and illogical (such as birthdates that made
no sense).

The Court rejected E’s claims and ruled that C and D were rightful heirs
22. Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar

Issues:

Does the husband have any rights over his wife’s Streedhan?

Does joint possession of Streedhan create a legal partnership between husband and wife?

Held:

A Hindu married woman is the absolute owner of her Streedhan under Section 14 of the
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Husband and in-laws are mere trustees of the Streedhan, and they must return it on demand.

If a husband refuses to return Streedhan, it constitutes criminal breach of trust under Section
405 IPC.

•Streedhan does NOT become joint property after marriage.

23. Jagannathan Pillai v. Kunjithapadam Pillai

- Widow (acquired the prop by the virtue of the death of her

husband) in 1956
- W --à to B (through a registered sale or gift deed) losing her
limited ownership rights.
- After the enactment of the HSA, 1956, the same alienee (B) re-
transferred the property to her through a registered document.
Issue:

1. After this re-transfer, A would get full ownership under Section 14(1) of the
Hindu Succession Act, 1956, or if she would continue to hold a limited estate as
before.

Held:
- A widow’s property rights are restored in full upon re-acquisition, even if the
property was initially transferred away
- Even if she lost possession earlier, once the property is re-acquired, she will
hold it as a full owner.
- Sec 14(1)
24. Vaddeboyina Tulasamma v.Vaddeboyina Sesha Reddi

- That time (1931) widow did not inherit property because widows didn’t
have rights under hindu law
- W -àcontests--- 1949: given prop ONLY FOR HER LIFETIME, AFTER
DEATH TO BE GIVEN BACK TO STEP BRO
- IN 1961: she leased and sold some of the properties to third parties.
- Tulasamma argued that after the 1956 Act, she became the absolute owner
under Section 14(1) and could freely alienate the properties.

ISSUE: Whether Tulasamma’s right in the property was absolute ownership under
Section 14(1) or a limited estate under Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

HELD:

• A widow’s right to maintenance is a pre-existing right under Hindu law.

• A compromise decree that grants property in lieu of maintenance does not create
a new right but recognizes an existing one.
• Therefore, Section 14(1) applies, and the widow gets absolute ownership.
• Section 14(2) applies only when the woman is given a completely new property
right with clear restrictive terms.

Thus, Tulasamma became the absolute owner of the property, and her alienations were
valid.

25. Bhagat Ram v. Teja Singh,

D2 then backed out from the agg

E sued for specific performance and won
F (D2’s husband) ---à claimed 1/2 share of land under sec 15 (1)(b)- heirs of the
husband

Rules: • Section 15(1) applies to general property of a female Hindu dying intestate.

• Section 15(2) applies when the property was inherited from the father or mother.

Issue:

Should Section 15(1) or 15(2) of the HSA, 1956 apply?

F argued: Since D1 was married, her share should go to her husband’s heirs under Section
15(1)(b).

E countered: Since the property was inherited from B (mother), it should be governed by
Section 15(2) and devolve accordingly.

Judgement: Since she inherited it from her mom, the property to devolve according to Sec
15(2) and husband as heir not applicable.

- D won his claim

Maintenance becomes women’s absolute property under Section

14(1).
26. Jayalakshmi Ammal v. Kaliaperumal

The moment property is given in favour of a Hindu woman ----à becomes absolute
owner despite the restrictions and limitations contained in the settlement deed.

Facts:

- Married W2 with consent of W1

- Same day A executed a settlement deed in which it was mentioned that first
wife can enjoy the property till her lifetime and after that it will revert
back to W2
- W1 tries to sell her prop à to which S1 chaalenges
- S1 passes -à W2 fighting on his behalf
Rule:

1. Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956

o States that any property acquired by a Hindu woman before or after the Act’s
commencement shall be her absolute property, whether acquired as a gift,
maintenance, inheritance, or any other legal means.
o This section aims to eliminate restrictions on women’s property rights and
convert limited ownership to absolute ownership.
2. Section 21 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882
o If property is transferred conditionally, meaning ownership is contingent upon
an uncertain future event, then the person receiving the property has a
contingent interest rather than full ownership.

ISSUE: Does a Hindu female have absolute ownership over property given for her
maintenance under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act?

Did the settlement deed grant Swarnathammal absolute ownership or just a limited right to
enjoy the property?

Was the sale of the property by Swarnathammal valid?

Held:

dismissed the appeal, holding that the property given to Swarnathammal was for her
maintenance, which means she became the absolute owner under Section 14(1) of the
Hindu Succession Act.

Since she was the absolute owner, she had full rights to sell the property, and the sale was
valid. --à matlab husband cannot give it to her for q limited time period

- Once prop given for maintainance, CANNOT BE REVOKED

- NO POINT FOR S1 AS PROP GIVEN EVEN BEFORE HE WAS BORN

27. Jupudy Parda Sarathy v. Pentapati Rama Krishna (SC Civil decided 6th nov 2015)
A executed a will in favour of W3
W3 executed her will, transferring property to B
On the other hand, parallely, X thinking that prop rights after W3 would return to family-à
sold it to Y

Rule:
. Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956

• This section grants absolute ownership to any Hindu woman over any property she
possesses, whether acquired before or after the commencement of the Act, if it was
given to her in recognition of a pre-existing right, such as maintenance.

Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956

• This section creates an exception to Section 14(1). It applies when a woman

acquires property under a WILL, gift, or other legal document that explicitly
grants her a limited estate.
• However, it does not apply if the property was given in recognition of her pre-
existing right (such as maintenance).

Issue:
Did W3 obtain an absolute ownership interest in the property under Section 14 of the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956?

HELD:

W3’s ownership became absolute under Section 14(1)

She had full rights to transfer the property

The sale by Narasimha Rao to the plaintiff was invalid

B was the rightful owner

Hindu woman dying intestate 15(1)

28. Omprakash v. Radhacharan

Facts:

• Narayani Devi was educated by her parents and became financially independent.
• She married Dindayal Sharma in 1955, but he died within three months.
• Without any support from her in-laws, she acquired significant wealth through her
employment.
• She passed away intestate (without a will) on July 11, 1966.
• A dispute arose between her mother and her in-laws over succession to her self-
acquired property.
Legal Issues:

1. Who should inherit Narayani Devi’s self-acquired property—her parents or in-

laws?
2. Does Section 15(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, apply to self-acquired
property of a Hindu woman dying intestate?
3. Should the interpretation of Section 15 follow the literal rule or the golden rule?

Judgment:

• The court held that Section 15(1) applies, as Narayani Devi did not inherit the
property from her parents or husband.
• Section 15(2)(a) and 15(2)(b) do not apply since her property was self-acquired, not
inherited.
• Justice S.B. Sinha noted that the law is silent on self-acquired property, but literal
interpretation of Section 15(1) mandates inheritance by the husband’s heirs (i.e.,
her in-laws).
• The literal rule of interpretation was applied, rejecting the argument that legislative
intent or emotions should influence the judgment.

Conclusion:

• The in-laws inherited Narayani Devi’s property, despite not contributing to her
education or well-being.
• The case highlights a gap in the Hindu Succession Act regarding self-acquired
property of a Hindu woman dying intestate.
•

Person who commits murder is disqualified from inheriting the property

29. VELLIKANNU V. SINGAPERUMAL

B kills A -à goes to jail à comes out -à wife divorces -à remarries someone else
So wife claims for A’s prop
Rules Applied:

• Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: A person who commits murder is
disqualified from inheriting the property of the person they murdered.
• Section 27 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: A disqualified heir is treated as if
they had predeceased the intestate, meaning they and their lineage cannot claim
inheritance.

HELD:

The respondent (husband) was barred from inheriting his father’s property due to his
conviction for murder under Sections 25 and 27 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

The appellant (wife) had no independent right to the property since her claim was only
through her husband. Since he was disqualified, she was also disqualified.

The doctrine of survivorship did not apply, as the husband was treated as if he had
predeceased his father.

30. Mamta Dinesh Vakil v. Bansi S. Wadhwa (Calls for gender based equality -à
referred to larger consti bench)

succession rules for males and females were not equal, which amounted to gender-based
discrimination.

Section 8 (which governs intestate succession for Hindu males) prioritizes the deceased's
heirs from the paternal side over the maternal side, which the court found discriminatory.

Section 15 (which governs intestate succession for Hindu females) prioritizes the husband’s
heirs over the woman’s own parents, which was also held to be unconstitutional.

Discriminatory Nature of Class II Heirs in Section 8

Under Section 8, Class II heirs prioritize the father’s heirs over the mother’s heirs. The
court held that this violates the equality principle in Article 15 of the Constitution.
16. Shreya Vidyarthi v. Ashok Vidyarthi
(case was decided in 2015 so acc to 2005 amendment)

Facts: W is the appellant

H married W1
H married W2, few years later à had 2 daughters D1 and D2
Appellant Shreya à adopted daughter of daughter (D2) from 2nd marriage
After death, 2nd wife taking care of family matters (both fams) = receiving monthly allowance +
monthly maintenance from trust from policy her being a nominee
W2 then bought some properties from this money

Issue:
- Whether this property would be considered as being bought from Joint Family Funds or from her
own personal funds?
- Whether a female (here daughter from second marriage) could be considered as Karta of HUF

Property bought using JFF or her own personal funds

- Existence of Joint family: Family lived together peacefully for years after the Husband died,
confirming the existence of a joint family structure
- Use of funds: Money received by 2nd wife was intended for family’s benefit
- Role of 2nd wife: Second wife acted as a manager of the family funds but not karta à
distinguished b/w role of widow and karta
- Widow cannot be a karta under Hindu Law, she may act as the manager in the absence of a
male coparcener
- Property bought using joint family funds, including maintenance and insurance proceeds.

daughter as Karta of HUF

- HSA 2005 granted daughters equal rights as sons in HUF properties
- Daughter is entitled to be karta of the HUF
- Daughter irrespective of being from second marriage has equal rights in coparcenery
properties
- Since she’s a coparcener, she has the right to act as a karta, if she is the eldest member
managing the affairs

18. Prakash and Ors. v. Phulavati and Ors (overturned by Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh
Sharma)

Appellant claimed part of ancestral property + its partition: that her father acquired (died in
1998)
- She acc to HAS 2005 amendemnt, claimed share

Issue:
- whether can be applied retrospectively
- can the Amendment Act apply if the father (coparcener) had died before the Act came
into existence?

HELD: daughters could claim equal coparcenary rights only if the father was alive on
or after 9th September 2005 ie. Date of the amendment. (overturned by Vineeta Sharma v.
Rakesh Sharma)
17. Vineetha Sharma v Rakesh Sharma

Father dies intestate in 1999

Daughter contends for prop acc to HAS 2005 as a heir

Issue: Since father dies in 1999, can daughter contend for property in retrospective application of
HSA?
- If daughters born before the amenedment can claim equal rights in coparcenery as a son?
HSA 2005 to have retrospective/ prospective effect and deemed to be coparceners in ancestral
property
- Father coparcener was alive or dead on the date of the amendment to the Hindu Succession
Act in 2005 is immaterial to the daughter’s right to inherit.
- Granting equal coparcenary rights to daughters is retroactive, meaning it applies from the date
of birth of the daughter, not from the date of the amendment.

*Cleared the confusion in Prakash and orsv. Phulavati case. Right to coparcenary
property is acquired by birth and not dependent on the father’s survival on 9 September
2005.*

Mitakshara Coparcenery
19. Dreha v. Vishal and Ors (2023)

Coparcenary property left behind after A dies in 1959

Husband (A) à 2 wives
1st wife à D1 (daughter)
2nd wife: S + D2
Both wives pass before him

After (A) dies : Partition of coparcenary property takes place b/w:

-Son from second wife
-Husband’s brother’s son (nephew)
-Widow of A’s brother
Each got 1/3 of share
Dispute: daughter from first wife excluded here. Asks for share in coparcenary property
+ mesne profits (compensation for wrongful possession) --à sonf from 2nd wife refuses

- D1 passes away à her son E inherits her legal rights from a will à continues case for
share

Held: A’s total share: 1/3 as he had 2 bros

Son 1 from first marriage = ½ of A’s share à 1/2 x 1/3 = 1/6

Now S was a coparcener from birth as a son -à already coparcener in his father’s 1/3rd share
( because sons automatically get a Coparcenary share).
The remaining 1/2 of 1/3rd gets distributed as per intestate succession (equally among
Class I heirs D1, D2 AND S)

So calculation:

Step 1: Vishal’s Coparcenary Right by Birth

Vishal, being a Coparcener, got 1/2 of that 1/3rd share automatically.

This gives Vishal 1/6th share right away.

Step 2: Remaining 1/2 of A’s Share is Divided Among All Heirs

The other 1/2 of A’s 1/3rd share gets distributed as per intestate succession (Section 8 of
HSA, 1956).

Since A left behind three Class I heirs (D1, D2 and S), they each got an equal part of this
remaining 1/2 share.

Each got 1/6th share (1/2 of 1/3rd ÷ 3 = 1/6th).

So finally,
S= 1/6 (coparcener by birth) + 1/6 (father’s share u/d intestate) = 4/6 = 2/3rd
D1= 1/6 (Father’s intestate)
D2= 1/6 (Father’s intestate)

THIS IS BECAUSE THE FIRST PARTITION HAPPENED IN 1964 SO THE

PROPERRTY DIRECTLY WENT TO THE SON BECAUSE HE IS MALE.THIS WILL
NO MORE HAPPEN POAT THE 2005 AMENDMENT. NOW: IT’LL BE DIVIDED
EQUALLY BETWEEN ALL 3 KIDS SO 1/9 EACH

20. Gurupad Khandappa Magdum v. HirabaiKhandappa Magdum (1978)

This is pre 2005 judgement

1. Notional partition: Assume the Husband is still alive so 7 parts
2. So each to 1/7th
3. Will divide 1/7th part of husband (now dead) to the remaining six people’s parts
-à 1/7 x 1/6 = 1/42
4. Add 1/42 to 1/7 (to get each person’s part) = 7/42