Distribution of Property Laws in India.

 

General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus.-
 
 
(1) The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in section 16,-
(a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband.
(b) secondly, upon the heirs of the husband.
(c) thirdly, upon the heirs of the father, and
(d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father, and
(e) lastly, upon the heirs of the mother.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),-
(a) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the father, and
(b) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from her father-in-law shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter ) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the husband.

Distribution of property after death, if there is no Will.

General rules of succession in the case of males.-
The property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of this Chapter-
(a) firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class 1 of the Schedule.
(b) secondly, if there is no heir of class I, then upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class II of the Schedule.
(c) thirdly, if there is no heir of any of the two classes, then upon the agnates of the deceased, and
(d) lastly, if there is no agnate, then upon the cognate of the deceased

partial partition of joint undivided property

The suit property is claimed to be the joint family property of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3. In 1948, the defendant No. 1 executed a will with the ill motive of bequeathing all the properties to defendants 2 and 3. The plaintiff instituted T.S.2/49 for partition of the ancestral lands located at Angapada. That suit was decreed and the decree was affirmed even by this Court. On the plea that the properties now in the suit which are located . at village Turada are also the joint family properties and have been left out of partition on the earlier occasion, the present suit has been filed. It is claimed that on 27-9-1958 the defendant No. 1 executed the sale deed for the suit land in favour of defendants 4 and 5 which is a void transaction. The plaintiffs claim that they have their 1/4th interest in the suit lands.
The defence of defendants 1, 2 and 3 jointly is that the suit is barred both under Section 11 and under Order 2, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code. The suit property is not the joint family property, but it is the self-acquired property of defendant No. 1. The plaintiff is not in possession of this property for more than 12 years and as such his present suit is barred by limitation.
 The learned trial Judge came to hold that the suit lands were ancestral joint family property; the suit was not barred under Sec-tion 11 nor under Order 2, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code; the suit was also not bad on the theory of partial partition. He further found that the sale deed dated 27-9-1958 in favour of defendants 4 and 5 was not binding on the plaintiffs and he accordingly decreed the suit.

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s