Hindu succession amendment Act.2009
Ramesh
(Querist) 12 October 2009
This query is : Resolved
Dear LCI forum members,
I AM SORRY IT IS "HINDU SUCCESSION AMENDMENT ACT. 2005"(not 2009).
The following is the Query/Discussion raised by Mr.sahadev k, as am interested to know/see the logical end of the Discussion; Especially in contest of A P state.
QUOTE:
**"I thank all who responded. I am aware that four states AP,TN,KARNATAKA AND MAH passed amendments at various dates . These acts restricted eligibility of daughters married or born after a certain date. The Central Act of 2005 removed the restriction on date of marriage or birth etc. I request all to go through the following judgements and get updated please.
1. DAMALANKA GANGARAJU AND OTHERS VS . NANDIPATI VIJAYA LAKSHMI AND OTHERS- AP HIGH COURT, 21ST MAR, 2007
2. SUGALABAI VS.GUNDAPPA A MARADI AND OTHERS -KARNAKATA HC 18TH SEP, 2007
3. PRAVAT CHANDRA PATNAIK AND OTHERS VS. SARAT CHANDRA PATTNAIK AND OTHERS ORISSA HIGH COURT - 12TH MARCH, 2008
4. N JANGI REDDY AND OTHERS VS YELLARAM NARSIMHA REDDY AND OTHERS 3RD OCT, 2007.
Thus all restrictions on date of marriage ,date of birth before,unmarried have been struck down after the above judgements. Also the supremacy of the Central Act of 2005 over various state amendments has been upheld in the above judgements.
Now this leaves with only one question i.e, the Madras HC judgement that a Hindu lady's father should have passed away after 29-3-1989, when the act was amended in TN. Here, Central Amendment Act, 2005 makes it clear that Section 6 of the Principal Act stood substituted by the new section 6 and for all practical purposes, the new Section 6 will have to be read as having been incorporated into the Principal Act from day one itself.
His Lordship Justice Vivian Bose in the case of Shamrao V. Parulekar v. DistrictMagistrate, Thana, Bombay AIR 1952 SC 324 which observations as under :
" that the rule is that when a subsequent Act amends an earlier one in such a way as to incorporate itself, or a part of itself, into the earlier, then
the earlier Act must thereafter be read and construed as if the altered words
had been written into the earlier Act with pen and ink and the old words scored
out so that thereafter there is no need to refer to the amending Act at all.
So is it not that the new section 6 of Central Act of 2005 is part of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 from day one itself ?"** UN QUOTE.
BY sahadev k, posted on 22 june 2009 is not answered can Learned forum members concludes this please.
With regards.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 12 October 2009
I think this has already been concluded and requires no more comments from any member.
