Testamentary Succession-

1. Kavita Kanwar v Mrs Pamela Mehta- Certain elements, such as, a shaky and doubtful
signature, a feeble or uncertain mind of the testator, unfair disposition of property, unjust
exclusion of legal heirs, and the active involvement of the major beneficiary in the
execution of the will, are indications of suspicious circumstances.
2. John Vallamattom v Union of India 2003 6 SCC 611- Held S. 118 (prohibition on
bequeathing property on religious and charitable institutions) unconstitutional for
violating Article 14 as it only applied to Christians.

Muslim Testementary-
1. Narunnisa v Shek Abdul Hamid AIR 1987 Kant 222- Muslim testator cannot bequeath
entire property upon one heir without the consent of others, he may only bequeath 1/3rd.
Silence or inaction does NOT amount to consent.

Gift (Hiba)-
1. Mussa Miya walad Mahammed Shaffi v. Kadar Bax, AIR 1928 PC 108- Where there is
bona fide intention on part of a guardian to make a gift, the law would be satisfied
without the change of possession and will presume the subsequent holding of property to
be on behalf of minor. However, a gift by maternal grandfather to minor w/o delivery of
possession to father is invalid.
2. Valia Peedikakkandi Katheessa Umma v. Pathakkalan Narayanath Kunhamu, AIR
1964 SC 275- Gift made by husband in favour of minor wife but accepted on her behalf
by her mother or even a stranger under whose care the minor is living is valid. Such a gift
can be made in absence of guardians such as father/grandfather or their executors.
3. Hafeeza Bibi and Ors. v. Shaikh Farid (dead) by L.Rs. And Ors., 2011(5) SCALE 371-
Not necessary for gift to be registered provided all essentials are satisfied.
4. Hayatuddin v Abdul Gain- Gift of Mushaa (undivided property) is irregular and not
void. The gift may be perfected by subsequent partition and delivery.
5. Commissioner of Gift Tax v. Abdul Karim, AIR 1991 SC 1847- Conditions of S. 191 of
ISA will be applicable to marz-ul-maut, and the same can be exempt from gift tax
provided all the conditions are satisfied.

Parsi and Christian Intestate-

1. Clarence Pais & Ors. etc. v. Union of India AIR 2001SC1151- Section 213 of the ISA is
NOT unconstitutional as it cannot be said that the section is exclusively applicable only
to Christians and, therefore, is discriminatory. Historical reasons may justify differential
treatment of separate geographical regions provided it bears a reason and just relation to
the matter in respect of which differential treatment is accorded.
2. Mary Roy v State of Kerela 1986(2) SCC 209- On the coming into force of Part-B States
(Laws) Act, 1951 the Travancore Cochin Succession Act, 1092 stood repealed and
 Chapter II of Part V of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 became applicable and intestate
succession to the property of members of the Indian Christian community in the
territories of the erstwhile State of Travancore was thereafter governed by Chapter II of
Part V of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

Muslim Uncodified Law-

1. Khuran Sannath Society v Union of India 2015 SCC OnLine Ker- Muslim personal
law cannot be abrogated by the court due to a violation of Art. 14, that prerogative lies
with the legislature.
2. Khairunnisabegum v. Nafeesunisa Begum- Full sister inherits as a residuary in presence
or her full brother, or with daughter or son’s daughter or one daughter and a son’s
daughter provided there is no nearer residuary. She takes as sharer if there is no child,
child of a son his father, true grandfather or full brother and she is entitled to 1/3 share (or
2/3 collectively when there are two or more sisters).

Uncodified Hindu Law-

1. Commissioner of Income Tax v. G. Lakshmninarayan AIR 1935 Bom 412 - While
answering the question of whether the income received by the right of survivorship by the
sole surviving male member of a Hindu undivided family can be taxed in hands of such
male members as his own income or it should be taxed as the income of a HUF, for the
purposes of assessment to super-tax u/S.55 of the IT Act, 1922, the Court held that the
income of the assessee should be taxed as income of a HUF for the purpose of super-tax
u/S.55 of the IT ACT.

2. State Bank of India v. Ghamandi Ram AIR 1969 SC 1330 - The Court stated that the
textual authority of the Mitakshara lays down in express terms that the joint family
property is held in trust for the joint family members then living thereafter, to be born.

The incidents of coparcenership under the Mitakshara law are :

First, the lineal male descendants of a person up to the third generation acquired on birth
ownership in ancestral properties of such person

Secondly, such descendants cannot any time work out their rights by asking partition.

Thirdly, that till partition each members has got ownership extending over the entire
property, conjointly with rest,

Fourthly, that as a result of such co-ownership the possession and enjoyment of the
properties is common
 Fifthly, that no alienation of the property is possible unless it to be for necessity without
the concurrence of the coparceners and that the interest of a deceased member lapses on
his death to be survivors.

The Court also held that - A coparcenary under the Mitakshara School is a creature of law
and cannot arise by act of parties except insofar that on adoption the adopted son
becomes a coparcener with his adoptive father as regards the ancestral properties of the
latter.

3. Moro Vishwanath v. Ganesh Vithal (1873) 10 Bom. 444 - the Court held that a partition
can be demanded only by one more than four degrees from the acquirer but it cannot be
demanded by a person who is at one more than four degrees removed from the last
owner. The reason behind this is that the coparcenary extends to four degrees from the
last owner.

Illustration 1-
- If a family consists of A, the original owner and his lineal descendants are- B
(son), C (grandson), D (great-grandson). D has two sons- E and F, E further has
two sons.
- If B and C die for instance, in a car accident. Neither E and F are still not entitled
to ask for partition nor can they sue their father for the partition.
- Now, if A also dies they can ask for partition as now they lie within the category
of coparceners.

Illustration 2 -

- If a family consists of A, the original owner and his lineal descendants are- B
(son), C (grandson). C has two sons- D1 and D2, D1 further has two sons- E and
F. E also has a son G.
- If B and C die for instance, in a car accident. After these deaths, D1 also dies,
then the two sons of D1(E and F) and a grandson(G) cannot ask for partition
because the property is inherited by D2 alone.
4. CWT v. Late R Sridharan & CWT v. Rosa Maria Steinbicher Sridharan (1976) 4 SCC
489 - The Court held that where a Hindu male married a Christian female and the child
was brought up as a Hindu, the family would be HUF governed by Hindu Law.

5. Revanasiddappa and Anr. v. Mallikarjun and Ors. (2011)11SCC1 - The question before
the Court was whether an illegitimate child u/S.16(3) of the HMA is entitled to inherit the
ancestral property of his parents or whether his share is only restricted to the
 self-acquired property o his parents? The Court held that S.16(3) has no qualification
before the word property, thus for the purposes of inheritance by illegitimate children,
they can only inherit the property of their parents and not of other relatives.

6. Muhammad Husain Khan v. BabuKishva Nandan Sahai, AIR 1937 PC 233 - The
question raised before the Court was whether the son acquires by birth an interest jointly
with his father in the estate which the latter inherits from his maternal grandfather. The
Court held that ancestral estate in which under the Hindu law, a son acquires jointly with
his father, an interest by birth must be confined to the property descending to father from
his male ancestor in a male line. Therefore, the estate inherited by the father from his
maternal grandmother is his sole estate over which he has the full power of disposal. The
son cannot claim to have acquired a birth interest in the property.

7. C.N. Arunachala Mudaliar v. C.A. Muruganatha Mudaliar, AIR 1953 SC 495 - The
Court held that the father of a JHF governed by Mitakshara has full and uncontrolled
power of disposition over his self-acquired immovable property and his male issue cannot
interfere with these rights in any way. The kind of interest a son would take in the
self-acquired property of his father which he receives by gift/testamentary bequest, would
not be of ancestral property. To put it shortly - A property gifted by a father to his son
could not become ancestral property in the hands of the donee simply by reason of the
fact that the donee got it from his father or ancestor.

8. Smt. Dipo v. Wassan Singh, AIR 1983 SC 846 - The Court held that a share in an
ancestral property is obtained by male descendants. They obtain interest in it by birth. But
with regard to other relations, the property is regarded as separate property and if the
coparcener dies without a son, the property passes to his heirs by succession. As per the
principle of Hindu Law a person inheriting the property from his three immediate
paternal ancestors shall hold the property in coparcenary with three immediate male
descendants, but if the person does have a son or son’s son or son’s son’s son then he
shall hold the property absolutely as his own.

9. M/s. Nopany Investments (P) Ltd. v. Santokh Singh (HUF), 2007 (13) JT 448 - The
Court addressed the question of whether the respondent can file a suit of eviction in
capacity of the karta of an HUF when, admittedly, an elder member of aforesaid HUF
was alive. The Court held the answer to be in the affirmative. It referred to the judgment
in Tribhovandas Haribhai Tamboli v Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and Ors to state that
under given circumstances, a junior member of the JHF can deal with the JFP as a Karta.
The circumstances in the given case - POA given to the younger member, no protest by
other members of JHF in filing suit.
10. Dev Kishan v. Ram Kishan, AIR 2002 Raj. 370 - This case dealt with whether the JFP
can be alienated due to legal necessity. In this case the Karta, under the influence of one
other member of a Joint Hindu Family mortgaged and sold the property for the illegal
purpose of marriage of two minor daughters. Their contention was that the act was done
in furtherance of a legal necessity. The Court, in this case, held that the act was done in
furtherance of an unlawful purpose, as the act was in contravention of the Child Marriage
Restraint Act, 1929, hence, it was not a lawful alienation.

11. Balmukand v. Kamlawati AIR 1964 SC 1385 - The Court held that the doctrine of
‘benefit of estate’ emerged from the doctrine of ‘defensive transaction.’ However such a
transaction also requires a minimum degree of prudence on the part of the Karta. The idea
of ‘benefit of estate’ doesn’t fit in this case as the family was in affluent circumstances
and that there was no evidence to show that the Karta was finding it difficult to manage
this property. The courts have laid down some guidelines so as to check that validity of
transaction under this doctrine:
- When the alienation is for defensive or protective purposes.
- When it brings any sort of advantage or improvement to the family estate.
- Where the Karta exercises his prudence suitable to family estate subject to:
- The degree of prudence is higher than the level expected in the case of exclusive
property.
- How the sale proceeds are used; because it has to be used for the benefit of the
family property.
12. R. Kuppayee v. Raja Gounder (2004) 1 SCC 295 - The question before the Court was
whether the gift made by father in favor of his married daughters of a reasonable extent
of immovable property (JFP) was valid. The Court answered in the affirmative, saying
that a father can make a gift of ancestral immovable property within reasonable limits
keeping in mind the total extent of JFP in favor of his daughter at the time or even long
after her marriage. In this case, the gift was of 1/26th the property, therefore it was held
to be reasonable.

13. Sushil Kumar v. Ram Prakash (1988) 2 SCC 7715 - The Court disallowed an
application for permanent injunction against the right of alienation of karta. The Court
stated that once the Karta alienates the property, the coparceners can challenge said
alienation in a court of law, however they cannot stop the Karta’s power of alienation. In
the words of the Court, “in case of waste or ouster an injunction may be granted against
the Manager of the joint Hindu family at the instance of the coparcener. But nonetheless
a blanket injunction restraining permanently from alienating the property of the joint
Hindu family even in the case of legal necessity, cannot be granted.”
14. Puttrangamma v. Ranganna, (1968) 2 SCR 119 - The Court considered several
questions with regards to partition in this case -

a. Is an agreement between all the coparceners for the disruption of the JHF status
required?
- NO. A member of a JHF can, by a definite, unequivocal and unilateral
declaration of his intention to separate himself from the family, enjoy his
share in severalty. It is immaterial in such a case whether the other
coparceners give their assent to the separation or not.

b. Is it necessary to communicate the intention to severe the JHF status to other

coparceners?
- YES. It is necessary that the member of the JHF seeking to separate
himself make known his intention to other members of the family from
whom he seeks to separate.

c. Would the revocation of the declaration of intention to severe JHF status re-unite
the family status?
- NO. When a communication of the intention is made, which has resulted
in severance of the HJF status, it is not open to the member making the
severance to unilaterally withdraw his intention and restore the family to
its original joint status. It is possible for the members of the family, by a
subsequent agreement, to reunite but mere withdrawal of unilateral
declaration of intention to separate which has already resulted in division
of status (de jure partition), cannot amount to an agreement to reunite.

15. Namdev Vyankat Ghadge v. Chanadrakant Ganpat Ghadge (2003) 4 SCC 71 - The
Court reaffirmed that - Adoption relates back to the death of the adopting father and an
adopted son must be looked upon as if he was in existence at the date of the death of the
adopting father. But it is not a correct proposition to say that the rights of an adopted son
are in all respects identical with that of a natural born son. The principle of relation back
is not an absolute principle but it has certain limitations. According to the law as laid
down in the decided cases, an adoption after the death of a collateral does not entitle the
adopted son to come in as heir of the collateral. Thus, the defendant, having been adopted
post the death of the father and after the properties were vested in his heirs, is not entitled
for a share in the suit properties.

16. Kakumanu Pedasubhayya v. Kakumanu Akkamma, AIR 1968 SC 1042 - The Court
was faced with the question of whether a minor, through a guardian, could ask for
 partition. The Court held that when a law permits a person interested in a minor to act on
his behalf, any declaration to become divided made by him on behalf of the minor must
be held to result in severance in status, subject only to the court deciding whether it is
beneficial to the minor, and a suit instituted on his behalf if found to be beneficial must
be held to bring about a division in status. The true effect of a decision of a Court that the
action is beneficial to the minor is not to create in the minor proprio vigore a right which
he did not possess before but to recognise the right which had accrued to him when the
person acting on his behalf instituted the action.

17. Kesharbai v. Tarabai Prabhakarrao Nalawade (2014) 4 SCC 707 - The Court held that
it is a settled principle of law that once a partition in the sense of division of right, title or
status is proved or admitted, the presumption is that all joint property was partitioned or
divided. Undoubtedly the joint and undivided family being the normal condition of a
Hindu family, it is usually presumed, until the contrary is proved, that every Hindu family
is joint and undivided and all its property is joint. This presumption, however, cannot be
made once a partition (of status or property), whether general or partial, is shown to have
taken place in a family. This proposition of law has been applied by this court in a
number of cases.

18. Sujatha Sharma v. Manu Gupta, (2016) 226 DLT 647 - The Court considered the
question of whether the married daughter as the senior most member of the Mitakshara
HUF can be a karta or not after the Amendment Act of 2005. The Court held that the
daughter can become the karta of the HUF.

19. Shreya Vidyarthi v. Ashok Vidtyarthi AIR 2016 SC 139

The Court was faced with the question of whether the widow can be the Karta of the family
which it answered in the negative. It was also faced with the questions of whether after the death
of the last major male member, in the presence of a minor male member, the HUF still exists,
which it answered in the affirmative. The property of this family continues to be JFP till the
minor male member attains majority.

Hindu Succession Act-

1. Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (11.8.2020) SC 16
Issues:
1. Whether the father coparcener should be living as of 9 November 2005 for
daughter’s right to partition?
No
2. Whether a daughter born before 9 November 2005 can claim equal rights and
liabilities in coparcenary as that of a son? (Is the Amendment Retroactive?)
Amendment is retroactive; if the daughter was borne before the amendment, the
amendment would still be applicable to her. Only N/A to partitions that have been
effected before 2005.
3. Whether the statutory fiction of notional partition created by Section 6 as
originally enacted bring about actual partition or disruption of coparcenary?
It does not. Notional partition only used to calculate the shares of the deceased.
Such shares distributed not final and can be disrupted by the birth/death of a
coparcener.
4. Whether a plea of oral partition after 20 December 2004 can be accepted as a
statutory recognised mode of partition?
No, must be registered. Even if oral partition effected, very high burden of proof
demanded.

2. CWT v. Chander Sen, AIR 1986 SC 1753

Property inherited by a son from his father, post 1956, is the son’s separate
property, not coparcenary, under S.8 of HSA. The son’s male issue will have no birth
right to this property. Son has exclusive power of alienation/disposal.
3. Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar, AIR 1985 SC 628
Women have absolute right over their stridhan and any person who withholds a woman
her stridhan is guilty of criminal breach of trust under S.405 IPC. S14 HSA read with
S.27 of HMA.
4. Jagannathan Pillai v. Kunjithapadam Pillai, AIR 1987 SC 1493
Concerned the interpretation of S.14(1); would, after the commencement of HSA, a
widow be a full owner of her acquired property on death of husband?
Held: “any property possessed by a Hindu female, whether acquired before or after the
Act’s commencement, would be a full owner of the property, not a limited one.”
5. Vaddeboyina Tulasamma v.Vaddeboyina Sesha Reddi, AIR 1977 SC 1944
 Concerned S.14(1). A compromise between parties that prescribes a limited right to a
widow is not valid. The widow would become the full owner of the movable/immovable
property despite an existing compromise that spells a limited interest.
6. Bhagat Ram v. Teja Singh, AIR 2002 SC 1
Does property of female pass to father’s heirs or husband’s heirs?
Under 15(1)(b) HSA, devolution of property of female dependent on source of
inheritance. If inherited from parents: father’s legal heirs.
7. Jayalakshmi Ammal v. Kaliaperumal, AIR 2014 Mad 185
When property is given in favour of a Hindu woman, she becomes the absolute owner of
that property despite any restrictions/limitations provided in a settlement deed.
8. Omprakash v. Radhacharan, 2009(7) SCALE 51
Self-acquired property goes to husband’s heirs under 15(1) despite
cruelty/mistreatment/ethical considerations. Law commission report 207; s.15 should be
amended.
9. Vellikannu v. R. Singaperumal and Anr. MANU/SC/0367/2005; AIR 2005 SC 2587
By virtue of S.25 and 27 HSA, son cannot lay any claim to the father’s property when he
has been disqualified because he has committed homicide. When the son cannot inherit,
based on principles of equity, justice, and good conscience, his whole stock (including hsi
wife) stands disinherited.
10. Dhannulal and Ors. v..Ganeshram and Ors., AIR 2015 SC 2382- Live-in relationship in
the nature of a marriage shall not be considered illegitimate.
11. Jupudy Pardha Sarathy v. Pentapati Rama Krishna SC Civil Appeal No. 375 of 2007
decided on 6th Nov 2015
When a limited interest in created in favour of a Hindu widow having a pre-existing right
of maintenance, said rights become absolute under S.14(1) HSA. Maintenance is not a
mere formality; it is a moral right. The right of a widow to be maintained, although does
not create a charge on the property of her husband but certainly the widow can enforce
her right by moving the Court and for passing a decree for maintenance by creating a
charge.
12. Mamta Dinesh Vakil v. Bansi S. Wadhwa MANU/MH/1869/2012
Challenging const. Validity of s.8 and s.15. Held that the discrimination between males
and females does not satisfy the test of equality under Article 15 of the Constitution, and
consequently declared Sections 8 and 15 to be violative of the Constitution. Case passed
to larger bench.
Held: gender discrimination in sub-classes V to IX under Class II; prioritisation of
father’s heirs than mother’s own parents.
13. Arshnoor Singh v Harpal Kaur, Supreme Court, 1 July 2019
If succession opened before the commencement of HSA, parties would be governed by
Mitakshara law. Coparcenery property persists up to 3 generations of male lineal
 descendents. Karta can only sell property if there is a legal necessity and the burden of
proof is on the seller. Remains coparcenary even after passing of HSA.

Diversity of Succession Laws (GCC etc.)-

1. Jose Paulo Coutinho v Maria Luiza Valentina- Portugese civil code, 1867 will be
applicable in India. Court also hailed Goa as a shining example of a UCC and
recommended that India implement the same.
2. Madhu Kishwar v State of Bihar AIR (1996) SC 1864- State govt can exempt any tribe
from the application of the HSA. It struck down provisions of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy
Act which gave males exclusive right to succession, for violating the right to livelihood
of females.
3. Bahadur v Bratiya 2015 SCC OnLine HP 1555- Where a custom has not been
recognized consistently by courts, and it is not ancient, invariable, and unbroken, the
rules of such custom will not apply to the said tribes. They shall inherit as per the HSA.
Case is important for recognizing that Hindu women must be advanced
socio-economically and cannot be left out of the mainstream. “they are entitled to equal
share in the property. Needless to add that gender discrimination violates Fundamental
Rights”
4. Ram Dev Ram v Dhani Ram AIR 2016 Chg 107- Court upheld the existence of a
custom which provided for a patrilineal scheme of succession.
5. Sarwango v Urchamahin AIR 2014 Chg 98- In absence of people upon whom
customary law AND personal hindu/muslim law would not apply, the question of
inheritance would be decided based on values of justice, equity and good conscience.
6. Smt. Kajal Rani Noatia v. Sri Raybahadur Tripura RSA No. 38 of 2009- The High
Court of Tripura even in absence of any existing law both at union and State level
declared and ruled that a Tribal Women from all Tribal Groups or clan in the State of
Tripura would succeed to estate of their parents, brother, husband, sons as their heirs and
inherit the property with equal share with male heirs.
7. Sweety (Eunuch) v General Public AIR 2016 hp 148- The order recognised property
inheritance customs within the Guru-Chela system, regardless of a person’s religious
identity. The Court referred to the legal recognition of third gender persons in NALSA v
Union of India. It reiterated third gender persons’ entitlement to legal and constitutional
protection. It also referred to Ilyas vs. Badshah alias Kamla, to argue in favour of the
custom of succession within the Guru-Chela system.