https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306570 Alleged family debts were not proved to be genuine or binding on the joint family, so no liability was established against the family estate. A charge for Guru pooja and utsavam was also rejected because no enforceable legal, customary, trust, or endowment-based obligation was shown to bind the family or the partitioned properties. In contrast, Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was applied to treat the deceased coparcener's interest as notionally separated immediately before death, vesting in the heirs and supporting their right to one-third of the casuarina sale proceeds realised after death. The decree in favour of the plaintiffs was upheld. en-us Wed, 27 Jun 1973 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Feb 2023 17:44:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306570 Alleged family debts were not proved to be genuine or binding on the joint family, so no liability was established against the family estate. A charge for Guru pooja and utsavam was also rejected because no enforceable legal, customary, trust, or endowment-based obligation was shown to bind the family or the partitioned properties. In contrast, Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was applied to treat the deceased coparcener's interest as notionally separated immediately before death, vesting in the heirs and supporting their right to one-third of the casuarina sale proceeds realised after death. The decree in favour of the plaintiffs was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 27 Jun 1973 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306570