TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether, after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975, the share of a deceased coparcener in Kerala devolves by survivorship or by succession under the Act; (ii) whether the daughter of a coparcener could claim a one-half share by invoking the 2005 amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956; (iii) whether the plaintiff was entitled to a larger share on the footing that the property remained the self-acquired property of the family ancestor.
Issue (i): Whether, after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975, the share of a deceased coparcener in Kerala devolves by survivorship or by succession under the Act.
Analysis: The property was held to be coparcenary property until the statutory abolition of the joint family system in Kerala. On the death of Vasu after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the proviso to Section 6 applied and his interest devolved on his children. On the death of Rajan after the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 came into force, the coparcenary had ceased to exist and the property was deemed to be held as tenants-in-common. In that situation, devolution on Rajan's death had to be governed by Section 8 and not by survivorship.
Conclusion: The succession to Rajan's share was not by survivorship, but by succession under Section 8, and the respondent's share was correctly worked out.
Issue (ii): Whether the daughter of a coparcener could claim a one-half share by invoking the 2005 amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Analysis: The amended Section 6 was held to be prospective and applicable only where coparcenary property survived on the date of commencement of the amendment. Since, by virtue of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975, no coparcenary property subsisted in Kerala after 1.12.1976, the amended provision could not be used to reopen devolution already governed by the abolition statute and prior successions.
Conclusion: The claim for a one-half share under the 2005 amendment failed.
Issue (iii): Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a larger share on the footing that the property remained the self-acquired property of the family ancestor.
Analysis: The controversy was not about the ancestor's absolute ownership but about the shares devolving from Vasu and Rajan under the governing succession laws. The documentary recitals and the admitted partition were relied on to ascertain the devolution, and the Court found no basis to disturb the concurrent findings on shares.
Conclusion: The plea for a larger share on that footing was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The concurrent findings were sustained and the decree granting 3/9 share to the respondent and 6/9 share to the appellant stood confirmed; the connected cross objection for an enlarged share also failed.
Ratio Decidendi: In Kerala, after the statutory abolition of the joint Hindu family system, no coparcenary property survives for the operation of amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and devolution of a deceased member's share must be determined under the ordinary rules of intestate succession.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
