Hindu law
irfan
(Querist) 21 September 2011
This query is : Resolved
how can it be proved that Hindu Sucession (Ammendment)Act, 2005 is against the concept of coparcenary in law is illegal, non-est, ultra vires?
how can the said ammendment can be proved its effect is prospective in nature?
plz help,,,me very quickly.......
plz also give me case laws
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 21 September 2011
Dear Mr. Irfan,
Why is such a tearing hurry?
First of all, who said that the Amendment Act is retrospective in nature?
Let the proving part come later on - first of all tell how in your view the amendment act is ultra vires the Constitution?
Shonee Kapoor
(Expert) 21 September 2011
It is not ultra vires of the constitution.
Regards,
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
irfan
(Querist) 22 September 2011
Sir...i have to participate in a national moot competition...tht is y i need the help frm u..
kuldeep kumar
(Expert) 22 September 2011
mr irfan on this forum only problems are solved..and problem u ask is ultra vires of lci
irfan
(Querist) 22 September 2011
sit this LCI is also for the help of law students
Dr V. Nageswara Rao
(Expert) 22 September 2011
There is no doubt that this website cannot be used by students who want to ousource their class work or who want others to do what they are expected to do by way of study and research.
kuldeep kumar
(Expert) 22 September 2011
what i said was a joke about ulta vires u r talking about.take it easy friend....
irfan
(Querist) 23 September 2011
Can daughter be a co sharer in joint hindu family property?
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 23 September 2011
You are a law student yourself.
You say you have to attend a moot court. It is a very basic query. One can understand if somebody has some ticklish or intricate query. But certainly not this type of rudimentary things. Don't you think that by this time at least you should be familiar with the basic concept? You cannot take things lightly with the hope that somebody else will readily provide you with an answer. You cannot try to live in borrowed knowledge all the time.I think you have to do some real hard home work. I am sorry to be so blunt with you. But it is for your own good in the long run.
kuldeep kumar
(Expert) 23 September 2011
yes daughter may be sharer in j huf.
kuldeep kumar
(Expert) 23 September 2011
dear irfan if u have any further query relating to any doubtful topic PM me..i wud try to solve ur problem.sasur bhi kabhi bap tha
irfan
(Querist) 24 September 2011
mr. Ramachandram.... sir i am from kashmir and there is no expert in hindu laws here...we also went to the high court but the lawyers there asked us that from last 25 years we didn't recieved any case on hindu law that is y sir i am not able to solve the problem...
irfan
(Querist) 24 September 2011
the facts of the case are stated below...
Sohan lal was head of the hindu joint family consisting of his wife, two sons and an unmarried daughter as depicted in the pedigree table given herein below:-
Sohan lal
_Gaytri devi (wife) MOHAN LAL(married) SHAM LAL(un married) KAVITA(UNMARRIED DAUGHTER)
Sohan lal was running a jioint family business with his sons at nabha(punjab) by diverting a major portion of the income, yielded from 200 acres of ancestral land, into the business of the family. All family members of the joint family were living in an ancestral house.
Mohan lal had three sons; namely, Sant Ram, Ram Lal, & Bant lal and one daughter Geeta Devi .
Sohan lal & his wife died in the year 1985 &1986 respectively.
After the death of his father,mohan lal became the head of the maily. On becoming the head of the family he undertook a large scale diversification of business which was shifted to patalia. And in order to augment the joint family business, Mohan lal sold 10 acres of ancestral land for rupees 10 crores to the Punjab and Sind Bank, PAtalia. He also made a gift of Rs. 10 lakh in favour of his un-married daughter(Geeta Devi).
Bant Lal, the youngest son of Mohan Lal was sent to England for higher education at the expenses of the family. After doing Bar-at-law, he returned to India & established a flourishing practice as an advocate. Although he was staying in the joint family, he kept all his earnings for himself, which was not liked by his two elder brothers and the sister.
Frustrated and depressed by the behavior of his own sons, Mohan Lal died of heart attack in 2006.
Realizing the reactionary behavior of her brothers, Geeta devi(daughter of Mohan Lal) filed a suit in the year 2007 for decleration of ownership as coparcenar and co sharer in the joint family property wherein she also made aprayer for joint possession of the property in dispute that included agricultural land, business assests/goodwill and ancestral house . she also prayed that income of bant lal advocate be included in the joint property of the family. The alienation made by Mohan lal in favour of Punjab & Sind Bank, Patiala was also challenged.
In the suit impleaded all her three brothers, Punjab and sind bank, Patiala and her uncle Sham lal as defendants. In order to establish her claim she invoked section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act,1956. The defendants pleaded that (A)the alienation in favour of Punjab and Sind bank was for legal necessity and benefit of estate and, therefore , valid; (B) the amendment made by Hindu Succession(Amendment) Act, 2005 was prospective and the alienation under challenge being prior to the amendment was not affected by the change in law; (C) the by Hindu Succession(Amendment) Act,2005 being wholly against the concept of coparcenary and joint hindu family property in law is illegal non est and ultra vires.
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 24 September 2011
This is exactly what happens when full facts are not revealed.
Now that you have given the moot problem, please tell you have to argue for whom?
irfan
(Querist) 25 September 2011
Sir i have to prepare frm both sides
