<?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>1974 (8) TMI 126 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276455</link>
    <description>Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was construed to require a notional partition immediately before a coparcener&#039;s death for the limited purpose of ascertaining the deceased&#039;s share, while also preserving a mother&#039;s pre-existing right to a share on partition in a father-son coparcenary under Hindu law. The analysis states that where the deceased leaves female heirs covered by the proviso, survivorship is excluded and the deceased&#039;s interest devolves by succession after the deemed partition is worked out. On the facts discussed, that approach resulted in the plaintiff being entitled to a one-fourth share in the suit property.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Aug 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Nov 2018 14:12:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=541465" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1974 (8) TMI 126 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276455</link>
      <description>Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was construed to require a notional partition immediately before a coparcener&#039;s death for the limited purpose of ascertaining the deceased&#039;s share, while also preserving a mother&#039;s pre-existing right to a share on partition in a father-son coparcenary under Hindu law. The analysis states that where the deceased leaves female heirs covered by the proviso, survivorship is excluded and the deceased&#039;s interest devolves by succession after the deemed partition is worked out. On the facts discussed, that approach resulted in the plaintiff being entitled to a one-fourth share in the suit property.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Aug 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276455</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>