Inheritance of property, Hindu
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. |
Contents |
Assets
Assets purchased in wife’s name are family property
Rajesh Kumar Pandey, February 24, 2024: The Times of India
Assets bought by man in wife’s name is family property: HC
Prayagraj : Allahabad HC has held that property purchased by a husband in the name of his wife who is a homemaker and has no independent source of income “will be the property of the family”, reports Rajesh Kumar Pandey. While dealing with a son’s claim for declaration of coownership of his deceased father’s property, Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal held it would be treated as family property “because in the common course of natural events, a Hindu husband purchases a property in the name of his wife… for the benefit of family”. Court observed that unless it was otherwise proved the property was purchased using income earned by the wife, it is deemed to have been purchased by the husband using his own income.
Appellant Saurabh Gupta had filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that he is the cosharer of a fourth of the property purchased by his father. He contended that since the property was purchased by his deceased father, he was a co-sharer in the same along with his mother, who is the defendant in the suit and respondent in the present appeal before HC. Since property was purchased in the name of his mother, i.e. wife of the deceased father, the appellant filed an application seeking an injunction against its transfer to a third party.
In a written statement, the mother pleaded the property was gifted to her by her husband as she had no independent source of income. Accordingly, the application for interim injunction was rejected by the trial court. HC, in its judgment dated Feb 15, held that such property prima facie becomes the property of the joint Hindu family.
Conversion of religion and inheritance
Conversion doesn’t alter inheritance
Lubna Kably, August 20, 2024: The Times of India
Conversion doesn’t alter inheritance, rules Guj court
An Ahmedabad civil court dismissed a suit filed by a Hindu man seeking declaration that his Muslim brother was not entitled to a share in their parents’ property because he had converted to Islam and was disinherited by their parents, reports Saeed Khan.
The case involved Kamal Sathwara and his younger brother, Julesh alias Junaid Sathwara, who converted to Islam and married a Muslim woman. The property under dispute was a house bought by their father, Manharlal. After his death, the property passed to their mother, who died in 2009. A third brother and his wife also died, leaving 2 claimants to the property. Plaintiff said he was in possession of the house since their mother’s death, and sought a permanent injunction that Junaid had no say in the property.
Junaid opposed the claims about his relation with their parents after conversion. He died in 2020 while the suit was pending, but had made a will granting his wife & daughter his share of the property. Court said plaintiff could not claim exclusive rights over the property in absence of his father’s will. He also could not prove that his Muslim brother was not entitled to a share, as section 26 did not disqualify a Hindu from succession merely on conversion to another religion.
Details
Dhananjay Mahapatra, August 20, 2024: The Times of India
NEW DELHI: Supreme Court has exercised its suo motu power a record 10 times this year taking cognisance of diverse issues, the audacious judicial order of a Calcutta high court judge being the first and the rape-murder of a doctor at Kolkata's RG Kar Medical College & Hospital being the latest. Most of them, however, have remained inconclusive.
While one needs to await the course of action of the CJI-led bench on Tuesday in the RG Kar hospital incident, a matter dealing with the remission policy of Chhattisgarh which attracted the SC's suo motu attention six months ago, is yet to be listed.
In another instance, the SC took cognisance on its own of the Madhya Pradesh HC terminating the services of six women judicial officers. Though proceedings were initiated on December 17 last year, a bench led by Justice B V Nagarathna is yet to reach a conclusion.
Another Calcutta HC judgement passing sweeping remarks gratuitously asking adolescent girls to "control sexual urge as in the eyes of the society, she is the loser when she gives in to enjoy the sexual pleasure of hardly two minutes." SC titled its proceedings 'In Re: Right to privacy of adolescent' and expunged the observations. But the judgment, reserved on May 17, is yet to be pronounced.
Between 1991-2022, it took suo motu cognisance of 50-odd cases, 10 of those, prompted by the depredations of the Covid pandemic in 2020, including taking stock of oxygen supply to Delhi and states, providing proper healthcare to patients and dignified handling of bodies in hospitals, ensuring adequate rest to doctors working tirelessly through the challenging times, keeping judiciary functional through virtual mode and asking govts to provide relief and rehabilitation to children orphaned by Covid.
This year's first suo motu civil case was registered by the SC on January 28, when it permanently stayed Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay's order asking SC secretary general to send him the documents that were placed before the CJI. Gangopadhyay has since resigned as a judge of Calcutta HC and got elected to Lok Sabha on BJP ticket.
Two more suo motu proceedings were initiated by the SC relating to recruitment of persons with disabilities and visually impaired in judiciary. In April, the SC had taken out proceedings against Gautam Budh Nagar District Bar Association office bearers for alleged assault on SC Bar Association members, who had appeared before the trial court despite a strike call.
In May, CJI DY Chandrachud had initiated suo motu proceedings for expediting the shifting Bombay high court to a new building. The HC, functioning since January 1879 from a four-storied stone structure resembling a castle built in gothic style and reflecting Mumbai's multi-cultural ethos and exuberance, would move to a modern building to be constructed at a 30-acre plot in Bandra East.
The last suo motu proceedings before the CJI were provoked by the audacious order of a Punjab and Haryana HC judge, Rajbir Sehrawat, who had cast doubts on the wisdom and majesty of the highest court. The SC had expunged the judge's unwarranted remarks with a warning.
In 2023, the SC took suo motu cognisance in three matters, one relating to management of Sariska Tiger Reserve and a temple within it attracting thousands of devotees. SC had constituted a committee to find a solution to this issue that could be a flash point between environment proection and pursuit of faith.
Widows
‘No absolute right of Hindu widows to husband’s assets’
Abhinav Garg, April 26, 2024: The Times of India
New Delhi:Delhi High Court has held that a Hindu woman without any income has rights to enjoy the self-acquired property of a dead husband during her lifetime.
However, she doesn’t have absolute rights to sell or transfer the property when there are competing claims by other legal heirs, including children, clarified the court in a recent order. The court was hearing a matter where the husband (who died before the wife) made a detailed Will giving right to his wife to enjoy the property till her death and further laid down how the asset will devolve.
“In the case of Hindu women, who may not have their own income, receiving a life estate given to them by their husbands who may predecease them is an essential safeguard for their financial security during their lifetime.
Such security is essential to ensure that the woman is not dependent on her children, after the demise of the husband. Under such circumstances, the wife has complete rights to enjoy the property during her lifetime. She can also enjoy the income from the said property throughout her life. However, it cannot be held that the entire property should be construed as maintenance giving the wife absolute rights over the property, after the death of her husband,” noted Justice Prathiba M Singh.
The court was hearing a case stemming from a property dispute where the civil court concluded that since there was a Will by the husband before his death, the wife became absolute owner of his property since she lived there for 23 years.
But the verdict was challenged with multiple claims over the property by the dead man’s six children and a granddaughter. One party so- ught rights over the property as envisaged in the Will by the dead man while the other side argued that since mother had absolute ownership, fresh partition of property must devolve from that.
“The Will categorically states that the wife has no right to sell, alienate, or transfer the subject property. Given this position, to assert that upon the death of her husband she became the absolute owner of the subject property and could have sold or alienated the property would contradict the clear intent expressed in the Will as also the intention of the deceased mother clearly expressed through her conduct that she did not execute a Will or sell the property during her lifetime,” the court observed.
The court underlined that the wife did not ‘possess’ any rights in the property prior to her husband’s death and acquired them solely under the Will.
