Subscribe to the Bombay Chartered Accountant Journal Subscribe Now!

Category: Allied Laws

HUF — Joint family property — Neither a wife nor a mother has a right to file suit for setting aside alienation — Hindu Law.

New Page 1

23 HUF — Joint family property — Neither a wife nor a mother
has a right to file suit for setting aside alienation — Hindu Law.

The respondent (mother) filed a suit for partition and
separate possession. It was her case that the suit property belongs to her
husband. The defendant (sons) claimed that there was a partition amongst the
brothers and each of the brother was supposed to cultivate his own share of the
property.

The Court held that a co-parcener has a right to alienate his
share in the joint family property inter vivos. If the suit property was a joint
family property in the hands of the defendants, each of the sons of the
defendant had a right by birth in the suit property. It was therefore for the
sons of defendants who had interest in the suit property by birth to challenge
the alienation made by their father and uncles. A mother does not have a right
independently to challenge the alienation of the joint family property since she
does not have a right in it by birth. Even if one of the defendants may have
sold certain property exceeding his share, it was for the sons of defendants to
challenge the sales since they had interest in the joint family property.
Neither a wife nor a mother has a right to file a suit for setting aside
alienation since she does not have right by birth in the co-parcenery property
at all. Right to her to have a share in the joint family property accrues to her
only when the co-parceners decide to partition the joint family property,
otherwise she is bound to be joint with her sons. The suit at the instance of
mother was therefore, not maintainable for setting aside alienation made by her
sons.

Further S. 3(3) of the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act,
1937 no doubt gives a right to the woman to seek partition. However, this Act
has been repealed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. If the provisions of the
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 are read, it would be clear that there is no
provision similar to Ss.(3) of S. 3 of the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act.
The Legislature in its wisdom has not thought it fit to continue, this right in
a woman. The S. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confer upon a woman to own
absolutely a property in possession which she got against her right of
maintenance or for pre-existing right.


[Ananda Krishna Tate (deceased by L. Rs) v. Drawpadibai
Krishna Tate & Ors., AIR 2010 Bombay 83]

levitra

Deposits made in post office monthly income account which was opened contrary to Rules — Depositor entitled to interest accrued on deposits. Govt. Saving Bank Act, 1879 S. 15.

New Page 1

9 Deposits made in post office monthly income
account which was opened contrary to Rules — Depositor entitled to interest
accrued on deposits. Govt. Saving Bank Act, 1879 S. 15.


The petitioner’s husband made deposits in multiple accounts
in post office monthly income scheme by opening 12 accounts. Subsequently the
accounts were converted into joint accounts. None of the post office staff
informed the petitioner that one should not invest beyond a certain amount in
joint a/c. In fact agents of post office persuaded the petitioner and her
husband to invest the amounts. When the petitioner asked for payment of the
amounts on maturity of the deposits the respondent deducted the interest amount
over and above the limit provided under the Post Office Monthly Scheme Rules.

The Court observed that it is an undisputed fact that the
petitioner has deposited different amounts into various accounts and none of
those accounts has exceeded the prescribed deposit limit. The first respondent
noticed that all the accounts were opened in the name of a single depositor in
various post offices and the amount put together exceeded the maximum amount
prescribed under the rules. Though the rules prescribed that more than two
accounts shall not be opened by any person, it was a mistake on the part of the
post master also in allowing the petitioner to open more accounts contrary to
the rules.

The petitioner contended that the agents who get com-mission
also made the petitioner and her husband to believe that there will not be any
problem if they open more accounts and they will also get interest on all the
accounts without any objection. Had there been any objection at the time of
opening of accounts or obtaining a declaration from the depositor that the
depositor did not open more than two accounts in any post office, that would
have made the petitioner and her husband to bind themselves that they have
knowledge about the rule that they should not open more accounts than two. There
was a mistake on the part of the post master also in allowing the petitioner to
open more accounts in the name of the petitioner and her husband. Therefore, as
the deposits were not made intentionally after knowing the rules, the petitioner
cannot be deprived of the interest accrued thereon.

The petitioner is entitled for interest on the entire amount
kept in the various post offices.

[ Smt. K. Susheela v. Ministry of Communications Dept.
of Post & Ors., AIR 2008 Andhra Pradesh 179.]

 


levitra