FAM LAW 2 MOD 1-10

Question 1

gur narain das v tahal das

Answer 1

if partition takes place bw father and sons then illegitimate son may get a share equal to the rest if father wants it to be and if not then he gets 1/2 share of legitimate son
//

Question 2

amirthammal v ammal

Answer 2

insane person - insane male member of family not a coparcener and his rights are temporarily suspended till he recovers, but if partition takes place he has to be allotted a share

Question 3

K. Devabalan v. M. Vijayakumari

Answer 3

It has been held that a Hindu father with his Christian wife
and a son will form a Hindu joint family.10 The correctness of the decision is doubtful, as in a joint family the father
and son constitute a coparcenary. In the coparcenary, the son has a right by birth. As being Hindu is an essential
qualification to be a member of the joint family, the son of a Hindu father by a Christian mother need not be a Hindu
in all cases. He will be a Hindu only if he is being brought up as a member of his Hindu parent’s tribe or community.
In other words, his religion cannot be determined at the time of his birth but is dependent upon his being brought up
as a Hindu. but this is** highly contested and it is still widely regarded that a hindu joint family must include of a FULLY HINDU FAMILY**

Question 4

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gomedalli

Answer 4

A Hindu Joint family consisted of the father, his wife, his son and the son’s wife. Upon the death of the father, the
question before the Income Tax Commissioner was whether the joint family can continue even when there was only
one male member i.e., the son in this case and whether he is to be assessed as an individual or as the Karta of the
joint family of which he was a member. The importance of this question lay in the fact that for the purposes of super
tax he would be allowed a large exemption if he was taxed as the manager of a joint Hindu family than if he is taxed
as an individual. It also means that if the Hindu joint family is taxed as a unit the individual members are not liable to
be charged in respect of what each member receives as his or her share of the joint income. The court held that he
was to be assessed as the Karta of the Hindu undivided family. Explaining the concept of a Hindu undivided family
and a coparcenary and the distinction between the two, the court observed that while for a coparcenary the
presence of at least two male members in the joint family is a necessary requirement, a Hindu joint family can
continue even with one male member, and accordingly in this case the son was competent to be assessed as the
Karta of his joint family.

Question 5

Rosie Marie v. CWT21

Answer 5

A Hindu male getting married to a non-Hindu female under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 is ousted from the coparcenary. But, can he form a coparcenary with the son born to him from a non-Hindu wife? The High Court of
Madras considered this question in Rosie Marie’s case,22 and held that as such a son is a legitimate son and as per
the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 195423his succession rights on the death of the father will be governed
by the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and not by the Hindu Successionact.

Question 6

de jure vs de facto partition

Answer 6

de jure partition is a division of rights, or a severance of status. In this type of partition, the partition has taken place, but actual possession has not been given. De facto partition is when the partition has actually taken place, and both ownership and possession of a property have been transferred.
De jure means a state of affairs that is in accordance with law, or officially sanctioned. De facto means a state of affairs that is true in fact, but not officially sanctioned.
In a de jure partition, the community interest is broken down at the request of one coparcener or by mutual agreement. The shares of the property are fixed or demarcated. The Doctrine of Survivorship is not applicable.

Question 7

incidents of coparcenary

Answer 7

(i)Four Generation Rule
(ii) Creation of Law
(iii) Only Males
(iv) Acquisition of Interest by Birth
v) Unity of Possession and Community of Interest
(vi) Fluctuating and not a Specific Interes
(vii) Collective Enjoyment
(viii) Doctrine of Survivorship
(ix) Right to Ask for Partition
(x) Alienation of Undivided Interest

Question 8

sec 25 of hindu succession act

Answer 8

This Section states that any person who commits the murder or assists the murder shall be disqualified from inheriting the property of the person, or any property in the promotion to succession to which he or she committed the murder. So as, If any person found guilty for the murder of the deceased intestate must forfeit his or her rights to come up with the property of the deceased.

Question 9

section 26 HSA

Answer 9

Convert’s descendants disqualified.―Where, before or after the commencement of this Act, a
Hindu has ceased or ceases to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion, children born to him or her
after such conversion and their descendants shall be disqualified from inheriting the property of any of
their Hindu relatives, unless such children or descendants are Hindus at the time when the succession
opens.

Question 10

In Janak Rani Chadha v. the State (NCT of Delhi),

Answer 10

In Janak Rani Chadha v. the State (NCT of Delhi), the husband was held guilty for committing the murder of his wife after a few years of his marriage. As she has leftover her property that she has purchased before her marriage. So, therefore according to the Hindu Provision Act, the property constituted her general property and as she died issueless, her husband would have normally succeeded to the property, but in accordance to the provision of Section 25, he was the one who murdered her, so he would be disqualified from inheriting the property.

Question 11

Kamalakanta Mohapatra v. Pratap Chandra Mohapatra, the court observed:

Answer 11

A joint family stands clearly distinguished from a coparcenary and if a joint family is the genus, coparcenary is the
species. No female could be a coparcener under Mitakshara and therefore a gift of joint family property cannot be
held to be void at the instance of a married daughter who was not a coparcener at the relevant time.

Question 12

right of coparceners

Answer 12

1. right by birth in property
2. right to common ownership
3. right of common enjoyment of the coparcenary property
4. right of survivorship
5. right to accounts- accounts lie with karta and can be asked in 3 cases - fraud, partition, or course of busiiness
6. right to make acquisitions in individual capacity (is entitled to maintain full segregation and survivorship wil not apply on those properties- further he can blend his separate propery into joint family property if he chooses to)
7. right to ask for partition
8. right to renounce interest (if father renounces interest while his sons are alive- then those sons ka interest will not be dampened and they are still entitled to their shares, but any son born after father renounces interest in coparcenary property will not have any interest and he will only be a member od the joint family)
9. Right to Restrain Improper Acts
10. right of alienation (a coparcener cannot alienate his UNdivided share by way of gift- unless it is a small portion to his daughter or sister) typically major rights of alienation lie with karta
11. right to challenge unauthorised alienation by karta

Question 13

n Nopany Investments (Pvt) Ltd. v. Santokh Singh 1

Answer 13

the Karta of a Hindu joint family was staying in the United
Kingdom and was not in a position to handle the joint family affairs in India. He executed a power of attorney in
favour of his younger brother and the whole family accepted the latter’s management of the joint family affairs
without any protest. This younger brother filed a suit for eviction against the tenant, and the tenant raised a
preliminary objection that as he is not the Karta, the suit for eviction filed by him does not hold good in law. The
Court dismissed the contention of the tenant and observed that it was not open for the tenant to raise such a kind of
objection with respect to the maintainability of the suit at the instance of the younger brother as the records clearly
showed that all along it was the younger brother of the Karta who was realizing the rent from the tenant and the
tenant is now stopped from raising any such question, and the suit was maintainable at the instance of the younger
brother claiming himself to be the Karta of the joint family despite the fact that he was not the senior most male
member of the Hindu Joint family. The court held that where the Karta of the joint family is away in a foreign land for
a long time and his return within a short time period is unlikely and due to his absence he cannot look after the
affairs of the Hindu joint family, a younger member of the coparcenary with the consent of all the members of the
family can act as the Karta of the family.

Question 14

Karta would be the
senior most male member of the family in what following circumstances a younger brother of the joint Hindu Family
can deal with the family property as Karta:

Answer 14

if the senior member or the Karta is not available
(ii) where the Karta relinquishes his right expressly or by necessary implication;
(iii) in the absence of the manager in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances such as distress or calamity
affecting the whole family and for supporting the family ;
(iv) in absence of the father;
(v) father’s whereabouts are not known
(vi) who was away in a remote place due to compelling circumstances and his return within a reasonable time
was unlikely or not anticipated.

Question 15

Ashok Kumar v. Commissioner of Income Tax,

Answer 15

Ashok Kumar v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar, 32 a Hindu joint family consisted of the father,
his wife and two minor children. The father was looking after the family business. He, as the Karta of the family, and
his wife entered into an agreement, pursuant to which he was empowered to draw a salary of Rs. 500 per month,
as remuneration for the services rendered by him in conducting the business. This salary paid to him, was shown
as an expense of the family in the income tax returns that he filed as the Karta. The income tax officer, however,
disagreed with him and argued that such an agreement was invalid, as a Karta is not entitled to draw any salary for
the work that he is under a duty to perform, and that therefore, it is not an expense that will be deducted from the
income of the family. The Jammu and Kashmir High court, following the Apex Court’s judgment, held that the Karta
is empowered to draw a salary pursuant to an agreement and no third party is empowered to challenge the validity
of such an agreement, as it is a matter essentially between the family members.

Question 16

3. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sarwan Kumar

Answer 16

where two out of three married brothers die, the surviving brother and the
widows of the deceased coparceners will continue to constitute a Hindu joint family. nt family, the other
members of the family though not coparceners, continue to be members of an undivided family. So, on the death of
the sole male member of a Hindu undivided family, females who were earlier members of the Hindu joint family are
allowed to continue with that status. So long as the property that was originally of the joint Hindu family remains in
the hands of the widows of the members of the family and is not divided among them, the joint family continues.53
The law provides that so long as it is possible in the nature of things to add a male member to the family, a joint
family does not come to an end

Question 17

Vijaya Renganathan v Bharathmatha

Answer 17

This judgement became an important judgement by laying down that children born out of void or voidable marriages can claim inheritance only in self acquired properties of their parents and not in the Hindu ancestral joint family property. This judgement took care to not ostracize or dehumanize children and emphasized on their status of legitimacy even after being born out of complex or unconventional relationships

Question 18

R Sridharan v. Commissioner of Wealth

Answer 18

dad hindu mom christian, son brought up as hindu stated in tax returns, so that they can claim Hindu Joint Family- tax dept was laike naur kid is christtyyy Court said no dawg it do not matter if marriage was under special marriage act, if kid has been brought up as hindu he is hindu

Question 19

Kakamanu Pedasubhayya v. Kakamanu Akkamma

Answer 19

31
and held that a partition of the joint family property through the filing of a suit by the next friend (in this case the
mother) can be validly effected. The court has to be convinced in such cases that the partition would be in the
interests of the minor and not affecting a partition would adversely affect his interests. In the present case, as the
parents were young the court opinioned that the possibility of the father getting married again may not be ruled out.
In that event he would get other children and may not be in a position to take care of the interests of this minor. On
the other hand the mother offered to deposit the share of the minor in the court and to invest it according to the
directions of the court showed bonafide on her part. The court called for the account of the total property, worked
out one sixth share of the minor and directed the Karta to hand it over to the grandson. This sum was ordered to be
deposited in the court with in a period of eight weeks with the specific direction for its investment in any nationalized
Bank during minority of the grandson and with a prohibition on its withdrawal even on account of maintenance of
the minor if he was otherwise maintained.

Question 20

shreya vidyarthi v ashok vidyarthi

Answer 20

in this case, didn’t clearly recognise the title of widow female as Karta but gave her a distinct title of being the manager till the time she acts as a guardian of a minor male coparcener.

Question 21

Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma

Answer 21

he Supreme Court ruled in the landmark case of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma that women are entitled to coparcenary rights from the moment they are born. It was also held that the father’s death would not affect the coparcenary rights of the appellant. This judgment overruled the earlier judgments of Prakash

Question 22

2. Bhowani v. Jagannath

Answer 22

As aforesaid, the right to receive the joint family income is one of the inherent powers of the Karta, in the exercise of
the management of joint family affairs. The income, from whichever source, will be received by him. The decision of
how to spend this joint family income and on whom to spend it, is with the Karta. He is not under any obligation to
economise or save, as in the case of an agent or a trustee

Question 23

Dev Kishan v. Ram Kishan,

Answer 23

52the Karta effected a mortgage, a sub-mortgage and a sale of two houses belonging
to the joint family, worth around Rs. 8000 to 9000, for a consideration of Rs. 400 to Rs. 900, which according to
him, were to be utilised for the marriage of his three minor children. The sale deed was executed on the day the son
was getting married. The transfers were held void as opposed to public policy, in view of the Child Marriage
Restraint Act, 1929. The court held that even if the amount of money was actually spent on the marriage of such
children, who were in the age group of 8–12 years, it cannot be termed as a legal necessity. Secondly, the
members of the family were earning and there was no need to sell the family property to raise the money. Thirdly,
the transfer was grossly undervalued and if there was a need of money, the transfers should have been effected for
an adequate consideration.

Question 24

Balmukund v. Kamlavati

Answer 24

n Balmukund v. Kamlavati,
91 a Hindu joint family owned a small portion of a big plot of land owned by the alienee,
who approached the Karta for the purchase of the joint family land, and offered him a higher consideration than the
market value. Initially, accepting his offer, the Karta accepted the earnest money, but he later failed to execute the
sale deed. The alienee filed a suit for specific performance of the contract and the Karta contended that he was not
empowered to sell the land as it was neither for legal necessity nor for benefit of estate. The family was in affluent
circumstances and there was nothing in evidence to show that the Karta was having any difficulty in managing the
property or that the family was incurring a loss in retaining that property. Nor was there any suggestion that he
wanted to invest the sale proceeds in a profitable manner. Rather, the Supreme Court observed that there was
nothing to suggest that any sale was being contemplated by any consideration of prudence. The Court therefore,
held that the contract and the proposed sale was not for benefit of estate and no suit for specific performance of the
contract could be decreed

Question 25

R. Kuppayee v. Raja Gounder

Answer 25

a co parcener may gift a portion of the undivided share to his sister or daughter but it should be a SMALL portion in Kuppayee v. Raja Gounder
the father had executed a registered deed of settlement in favour of his
married daughter, of immovable properties, and had delivered possession to her, but later, he himself wanted to
vitiate the settlement on the ground, that this being a joint family property, he was incapable of making a gift in
favour of the daughter and even if he were so capable, the gift was bad as it was not of a small portion. Rejecting
both his contentions, and upholding the validity of the gift, the Court observed: 26123
The question as to whether a particular gift is within reasonable limits or not has to be judged according to the status of the
family and the extent of the property gifted.

Question 26

Raghavamma vs Chenchamma

Answer 26

Even though the executants’ desire to separate is inferred in the “will,” partition cannot be effective unless the other members are aware of the intention. Before the testator died, neither the minor coparcener (Subbarao) nor his guardian (mother-Chenchamma) was aware of the contents of the “Will.” The plaintiff’s whole case failed because he failed to prove the factum of division, and she could not claim possession of the assets because they were devolved upon the minor lone surviving coparcener (Subbarao) and, after his death, upon his guardian, i.e. his mother, by survivorship (Chenchemma

Question 27

3. Puttrangamma v. Ranganna

Answer 27

A partition, is a matter of individual volition. All that the coparcener has to do is to form an unequivocal intention to
separate himself from the joint family and then, to communicate it. The most appropriate person to whom it should
be communicated, is the Karta, but if he, for the time being, is unavailable, it can be brought to the notice of the
other coparceners. Since the Karta manages the property and plays a lead role in its actual division, a partition by
metes and bounds cannot take place unless the Karta is informed about the intention to separate. However, there is
no need to inform each and every coparcener and a communication to the Karta is sufficient.

Question 28

Radhika v. Anguram (1994) 5 SCC 761.

Answer 28

where a Hindu female died leaving behind her daughter from a previous marriage and the second husband and property that she had inherited from her father, it was held that since the deceased had inherited the property from her parent, her daughter alone will be entitled to succeed and the husband here cannot succeed as said in case

Question 30

Sawan ram v kalawati

Answer 30

husband died after that wife adopted son but then she also dies 2 weeks later- adoptive son claimed rights in deceased husbands proprty- he can claim

Question 32

minor asking for partition case

Answer 32

Aryan Kamal Wadhwa v. Biharilal Wadhwa
x started his own HUF and his 2 sons got married. A the son who got married had a child but soon due to marital issues the wife left and was estranged and her child with her. later wife asked for partition as a “next friend” of the minor son form the HUF. HUF said no need for partition we are willing to maintain him and he is a minor so who are you to ask anyway- court stated that in cases of minor requiring partition court needity be conviced that itis in benefit of minor and here the father may remarry later and not provide maintenance later which would be an issue so now it is in the best interest of the minor chuld to get partitioned share

Question 33

Puttrangamma v. Ranganna,

Answer 33

n Puttrangamma v. Ranganna,
94 the Karta, with his three brothers and their descendants, constituted a joint family.
He himself had four daughters and no male issue. He issued a notice from the hospital, to the other members,
declaring his unequivocal intention to separate from the joint family, as he was sick. At the time of issuing of this
notice, his younger brother’s son was present in the hospital. He snatched the notice and attempted to tear it, but
was prevented from doing so. After the notice was registered at the post office, the family members intervened,
tried to bring about an amicable settlement and persuaded him to withdraw the notice. He wrote an application to
the post office to withdraw the notice and the request was complied with. As no agreement could be reached
subsequently, he signed the vakalatnama and instructed his lawyer to institute a suit for partition, and died on the
day on which the suit was instituted. The question before the court was, what was his status at the time of his
death: that of a separate member or of a joint family member?

bec if he died as undivided memeber= his daughters woud get nothing due to rule of survivrship and if he died as seperate member= daughters get properrty
HELD: he died seperate bec not only did he write the notice, one of the coparceners was there and well aware so the revocation of the notice did not revoke the parttiion rather it was simply removal of notice after the parttion had already occured.