<?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>2016 (3) TMI 1369 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285119</link>
    <description>Under the unamended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, a notional partition is assumed immediately before a male Hindu&#039;s death where the proviso applies, and the deceased&#039;s share then devolves by intestate succession under Section 8. Read with Section 19, the heirs take that share as tenants in common, and Section 4 overrides inconsistent pre-existing Hindu law. The Supreme Court noted that once a coparcener&#039;s interest devolves in this manner, the property in the heirs&#039; hands loses its joint family character. The grandson therefore had no subsisting birth right to demand partition of property that was no longer coparcenary property when the suit was filed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Dec 2019 06:51:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=598554" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (3) TMI 1369 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285119</link>
      <description>Under the unamended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, a notional partition is assumed immediately before a male Hindu&#039;s death where the proviso applies, and the deceased&#039;s share then devolves by intestate succession under Section 8. Read with Section 19, the heirs take that share as tenants in common, and Section 4 overrides inconsistent pre-existing Hindu law. The Supreme Court noted that once a coparcener&#039;s interest devolves in this manner, the property in the heirs&#039; hands loses its joint family character. The grandson therefore had no subsisting birth right to demand partition of property that was no longer coparcenary property when the suit was filed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285119</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>