Must Read

Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC477

By
Image
Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 477||Case Summary  Introduction  In this appeal, the Court has interpreted Article 15(4) of the Fundamental Right. It has been added by the 1st Amendment Act, of 1951. Facts The State of Haryana instructed Maharshi Dayanand University (MDU), Rohtak to conduct entrance examination for MD/MS/PG courses for the Session 2008-2009. The appellant made a representation to the Health Secretary for providing reservation for SC and ST in the Post Graduate courses, Since there was no response from the Health Secretary the Appellant filed a petition in the High Court.  The High Court dismissed the petition of the appellant therefore the appellant approached the Supreme Court by Special Leave Petition under Article 136. Appellant Contentions  MDU, Rohtak has provided 20% reservation for the graduate level courses or undergraduate courses therefore the said University should also provide reservation in for the PG courses.  The Government o
Post a Comment

Muhammad Husain Khan v. Babu Kishva Nandan Sahai, 1993

By

 Muhammad Husain Khan v. Babu Kishva Nandan Sahai, 1993

Introduction

This is an appeal from a decree of the Allahabad High Court. The respondent (plaintiff) claimed for a possession of a village. The appellant challenged the validity of a will.

Character

Ganesh Prasad- Father
Bindeshri Prasad- Son
Giribala - Son's wife 

Facts

Ganesh Prasad (who inherited property from his maternal grandfather. He made a will that such property will go to his son (Bindeshri Prasad) for his life and on his death it was to vest in his widow (GiriBala).

In execution of a decree for money obtained by a creditor against Bindeshri Prasad the village was sold by auction.

Bindeshri Prasad (son) brought the suit on the ground that the sale was vitiated by fraud. He died on 25th December 1926. Thereafter, Giribala was substituted as plaintiff by an application. She also asked for leave to amend the plaint and prayed that if the sale be held to be binding upon her husband, it should be declared to be inoperative as against her rights of ownership which was given by her father-in-law through the will.

Case History

1. Trial judge- allowed the amendment.

2. District court – Dismissed such amendment and suit.

3. High Court- allowed the amendment for determining the real question in controversy between the parties.

Supreme Court

Arguments Of Appellant (defendants)

1. The property inherited by a daughter’s son from his maternal grandfather is ancestral property.

2. He relied on the Judgement of [Chelikani Venkayyamma Garu v. Chelikani Venkataramanayyamma]

“ the property which has descended from the maternal grandfather to his two grandsons.”

Arguments Of Respondent (plaintiff)

1. [Atar Singh v. Thakar Singh]- “The property must came from male collaterals and not from maternal grandfather.

Ratio Decidendi

1. Ancestors ordinarily include ascendant in the maternal as well as the paternal line.

2. Ancestral property under Hindu law includes only the property descended to the father from his male ancestor in the male line.

3. The Court in the case of Chelikan Venkayyamma Garu, limited it’s jurisdiction only to determine the scope of survivorship and held that a person who inherits property from maternal grandfather will have the benefit of survivorship. Neither the Court nor the parties were concerned about the nature of property i.e., whether it was ancestral or not.

Decisions

1. The estate inherited from one’s maternal grandfather cannot be held to be ancestral property.

2. Consequently, Ganesh Prasad (Father-in-law) had full power of disposal over that estate and the devise made by him (Ganesh) in favor of his daughter-in-law (GiriBala) could not be challenged by his son or any other person. On the death of her husband, the devise in her favor came into operation and she became the absolute owner of the village. The sale of that village in execution proceedings against her husband could not adversely affect her title.

3. Appeal Dismissed.

Summary

The estate which had descended from the maternal grandfather is not an ancestral property. In this case the court observed that Ganesh Prasad had inherited the property from his maternal grandfather therefore, no application of the rule of ancestral estate because such type of property requires the property descending to the father from his male ancestor in the male line or paternal line only not maternal line. The estate in hand of Ganesh Prasad had his separate property so he had full power to make the will. In such will he had given the right to his son on the village only for his life and on his (son) death it was to vest in his widow, GiriBala.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Post

Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co. Ltd. v. Riche (1875)

By
Image
Ashbury railway carriage v riche|| Case Summary  Introduction   This case is related to the " Doctrine of Ultra Vires". In this case, the directors of the appellant company made an agreement with the plaintiff which was beyond the objectives, as mentioned in its MoA, of the appellant Company. Since the agreement was beyond its objectives, the appellant company repudiated the agreement later. Therefore the suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover the damages. Facts   The directors of the appellant company (Ashbury Railway Carriage) had contracted to obtain a concession from Gillon and Poeters Baerston, who obtained this right from the Belgian Government, to make a railway.  For this purpose, the directors of the appellant company again entered into a contract with Riche, a contractor, the purpose of which was to establish a société anonyme,  and as the plaintiff went on with the work, the appellant company had to pay into the hands of société anonyme,  Earlier the sharehol
Read more

Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353

By
Image
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353 Case Summary Introduction The case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate involved a dispute between the management of the Dimakuchi Tea Estate and its workers. This case has discussed and cleared the meaning of the expression "any person" used in S.2(K) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of a limited interpretation of the term "any person" thereby excluding the present appellant from the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. This decision denied the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute and extended the benefits and protections of the Act to the employers. Facts of the Case The dispute was raised over the termination of the service of Dr K.P. Banerjee, who was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer in the Respondent's estate (Dimakuchi Tea Estate), on the grounds of being incompetent. Although th
Read more