<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2006 (9) TMI 578 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196048</link>
    <description>Where a Hindu male dies after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 with an interest in Mitakshara coparcenary property, succession to that interest is governed by Section 6 rather than the general rule in Section 8. Section 4 overrides inconsistent pre-existing Hindu law, and Section 6 applies its special scheme to coparcenary property, subject to the statutory proviso concerning female Class I heirs. The property retained its joint family character on the facts noted, so the succession had to be worked out under Section 6 and not by resort to pre-Act Hindu law. Section 8 therefore had no application to that extent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Feb 2024 17:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=496586" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (9) TMI 578 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196048</link>
      <description>Where a Hindu male dies after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 with an interest in Mitakshara coparcenary property, succession to that interest is governed by Section 6 rather than the general rule in Section 8. Section 4 overrides inconsistent pre-existing Hindu law, and Section 6 applies its special scheme to coparcenary property, subject to the statutory proviso concerning female Class I heirs. The property retained its joint family character on the facts noted, so the succession had to be worked out under Section 6 and not by resort to pre-Act Hindu law. Section 8 therefore had no application to that extent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196048</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>