Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Kalooram Govindram VS Commissioner Of Income-tax. M. P. Nagpur And Bhardara...
Kalooram Govindram VS Commissioner Of Income-tax. M. P. Nagpur And Bhardara - 1965 0 Supreme(SC) 116 : Under Hindu Law, partition transforms the status of coparceners from having a community of interest in the entire joint family property to becoming tenants-in-common with definite shares. This process confers on each member an absolute title to a specified property, thereby converting their interest in the joint family property into separate, individual ownership. The acquisition of a definite share through partition results in the property becoming separate property, as the member''''s interest crystallizes into a specific, identifiable asset. The cost of the property to the individual at the time of partition is determined by its value at that time, not the original cost, reinforcing the legal recognition of the new separate ownership.Checking relevance for Vineeta Sharma VS Rakesh Sharma...
Checking relevance for V. N. Sarin VS Ajit Kumar Poplai...
V. N. Sarin VS Ajit Kumar Poplai - 1965 0 Supreme(SC) 174 : Partition of Hindu joint family property transforms the joint title of coparceners to the totality of family property into separate titles for each coparcener in respect of specific properties allotted to them. Although each coparcener has an antecedent title to the property, the extent is not determined until partition. The process involves renouncing undivided rights in other properties in exchange for exclusive title to allotted property, which constitutes acquisition of separate property by partition. However, this is not considered a ''''transfer'''' within the meaning of Section 14(6) of the relevant Act, as the coparcener already had a pre-existing interest in the property, and the change is not equivalent to a stranger acquiring title through transfer.Checking relevance for Tolaram Bijoy Kumar VS Commissioner Of Income Tax, Assam...
Tolaram Bijoy Kumar VS Commissioner Of Income Tax, Assam - 1978 0 Supreme(SC) 55 : Once a partial partition is accepted as genuine and not a colourable or sham transaction, the share of capital of each coparcener thereafter ceases to be a joint family asset and becomes his individual asset de hors the family. However, if the business was originally a joint Hindu family business prior to partition, and the partnership formed after partition is based on the same business, the share of the coparcener in the partnership cannot be regarded as separate property but becomes the property of the joint Hindu family of the coparcener and his sons. The character of the property depends on whether it was acquired with the aid of joint family property or through a contract as partners. If the property was acquired by joint labour of the joint Hindu family members without the aid of joint family funds, it is presumed to be the joint property of the acquirers, but this presumption may be rebutted by proof that the members acquired it as partners under a contract. In the case before the court, the business was assessed as a joint family business for years prior to partition, and the partition deed recited that the business was a joint family business. Therefore, the share of Tolaram in the post-partition partnership was not his separate property but became part of the joint Hindu family of Tolaram and his sons.Checking relevance for SARDAR BAHADUR SIR SUNDER SINGH MAJITHIA VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, UNITED AND CENTRAL PROVINCES...
SARDAR BAHADUR SIR SUNDER SINGH MAJITHIA VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, UNITED AND CENTRAL PROVINCES - 1942 0 Supreme(SC) 12 : A Hindu undivided family may partition only a portion of its joint property while retaining its undivided status, and such a partial partition does not disrupt the family. The partition of a portion of joint family property results in the members acquiring separate shares in that portion, which then become their separate property. This is consistent with the law that allows members of a Hindu undivided family to bring their separate shares into a partnership, thereby forming a firm entitled to registration under the Income-tax Act. Section 25A of the Act does not bar the recognition of such a partial partition or the creation of separate property from joint family assets, provided the partition is validly made. The legal effect of a valid partition is that the shares allotted become the separate property of the members, even if the family continues as an undivided entity.Checking relevance for Ramachandran VS Vijayan...
Ramachandran VS Vijayan - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 1075 : Under Marumakkathayam law, property obtained by a female and her children in partition retains its tharwad characteristics, ensuring rights for future descendants. The court ruled that upon partition, a tharwad breaks up into separate units (thavazhi), and the property allotted to a multi-member unit, including one formed by a female and her children, continues to retain its tharwad character. This means the property does not become separate property but remains tharwad property, securing rights for persons born or adopted into the unit in the future. The minority view, which holds that partition changes the nature of property from tharwad to separate property, was rejected by the court in favor of the majority view that the tharwad nature is preserved post-partition.
