<?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>2012 (10) TMI 1282 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462721</link>
    <description>After the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975, a deceased coparcener&#039;s share in Kerala was held to devolve by succession, not survivorship, once the joint family system had ceased and the property was treated as held by tenants-in-common. The amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was treated as prospective and could not reopen prior devolution where no coparcenary property survived in Kerala after 1.12.1976, so the daughter&#039;s claim to a one-half share failed. The plea that the property remained the ancestor&#039;s self-acquired property was also rejected, and the concurrent finding of shares was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2025 18:30:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=835423" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (10) TMI 1282 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462721</link>
      <description>After the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975, a deceased coparcener&#039;s share in Kerala was held to devolve by succession, not survivorship, once the joint family system had ceased and the property was treated as held by tenants-in-common. The amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was treated as prospective and could not reopen prior devolution where no coparcenary property survived in Kerala after 1.12.1976, so the daughter&#039;s claim to a one-half share failed. The plea that the property remained the ancestor&#039;s self-acquired property was also rejected, and the concurrent finding of shares was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462721</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>