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

Smt. Dipo v. Wassan Singh, 1983

By

 Smt. Dipo v. Wassan Singh 1983

Introduction

The present appeal by Special Leave Petition before Supreme Court was raised by the plaintiff over an Order of the Punjab & Haryana HC. The Court in this case (Smt. Dipo v. Wassan Singh) had elaborately discussed the position of an ancestral property after partition.

Facts

In this case the appellant, Smt. Dipo (plaintiff) filed a suit to recover possession of the properties which belonged to her brother, Bua Singh, who died in 1952. She claimed to be her nearest heir of Bua Singh. The suit was contested by the defendants who were the sons of Ganda Singh, paternal uncle of Bua Singh on the ground that Smt. Dipo was not the sister of Bua Singh and even if she was the sister, the defendants were preferential heirs according to custom, as the whole of the land was ancestral in the hands of Bua Singh.

Case History

  1.  Subordinate Judge – Most of the suit properties were ancestral in hands of Bua Singh while a few were not ancestral. According to custom, the sister was excluded by collaterals in ancestral property while she was entitled to succeed to non-ancestral property. A decree was granted in favor of the plaintiff (Smt. Dipo) for a certain share in non ancestral properties.
  2. District Court- The plaintiff appeal was dismissed on the ground that plaintiff did not present.
  3. Punjab & Haryana High Court- The defendants also preferred an appeal ,but that was also dismissed. A second appeal by the plaintiff was dismissed as barred by limitation.

Supreme Court

Issue

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of brother’s property by survivorship because there was no surviving member of Joint Family or male issue?

2. How will the property of sole surviving member will devolve after his death?

Ratio Decidendi

1. Ancestral Property in Mulla’s “Principles of Hindu Law” - A person inheriting property from his three immediate paternal ancestors.

2. The share obtained by a coparcener from an ancestral property through partition becomes a separate property.

3. Rule of survivorship applies on the death of the Coparcener, it passes to his nearest heir.

Decision

1. If the Coparcener dies without having a male issue, the property owned by him after partitioning the ancestral property becomes his separate property and passes to his heirs by succession.

2. The defendants were collaterals of Bua Singh and as regard them the property was not ‘ancestral property’ therefore the plaintiff (Smt. Dipo) will be the preferential heirs.

3. After the death of Bua Singh, the property will be devolved by rule of survivorship to his nearest heir (his sister- Smt. Dipo).

Case Summary

In this case the court had discussed about the application of the rule of survivorship on ancestral property having no male issue. The criteria is that the share which a Coparcener obtains on partition of ancestral property is ancestral property as regards his male issue and if such Coparcener dies without leaving his male issue, it becomes a separate property and will be passes to his heirs by succession. Here Bua Singh the last holder of the joint family property had ancestral property. He died without leaving male issue, therefore, it is a separate property and will be passes to his heirs by succession or rule of survivorship. Accordingly Smt. Dipo was entitled as his nearest heir.


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