9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Claim of hereditary rights, partition of properties, interpretation of Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Summary: The appellant sought partition and possession of properties based on hereditary rights, claiming ancestral property as HUF property. The suit was dismissed as the plaintiff failed to establish the property as part of an HUF, following legal precedents that inheritance from paternal ancestors is self-acquired property. The appellant challenged the dismissal, arguing entitlement as a coparcener member of an HUF. The Supreme Court precedent in Chander Sen and Yudhister clarified that a son's right in ancestral property accrues at birth, not inheritance, affected by Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The appellant's claim lacked evidence of the property being HUF, leading to dismissal of the suit by the Single Judge. The appellant's reliance on Thamma Venkata Subbamma case was deemed misplaced. The appellant failed to prove the property as HUF, as required by law, and did not establish devolution of HUF interest from the grandfather. The appellant's argument neglected the property's self-acquired status under the law, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The court upheld the Single Judge's decision, dismissing the appeal and related applications.
|
