Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
The core ratio in Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Chander Sen (AIR 1986 SC 1753), consistently applied with Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar (AIR 1987 SC 558), overrules pre-1956 coparcenary rules under Section 8 of HSA, treating post-Act paternal inheritance as individual property, divesting sons of undivided shares; affirmed across judgments as binding precedent ["Ravi Shankar Sharma vs Kali Ram Sharma - Delhi"] ["Sushant vs Sunder Shyam Singh - Delhi"] ["RAVI SHANKAR SHARMA vs KALI RAM SHARMA AND ORS. - Delhi"] ["Ajit G. Saraff VS Commissioner of Income-tax - Karnataka"] ["SHRI MANOJ KAPOOR VS OM PRAKASH KAPOOR - Delhi"]
In the realm of Indian property law, certain Supreme Court judgments stand as pillars, shaping how ancestral and inherited properties are treated under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA). One frequently cited case is AIR 1986 SC 1753, officially Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur v. Chander Sen. Legal practitioners, students, and property owners often ask: AIR 1986 SC 1753 what is the ratio decidendi of this judgement? This post delves into the core holding, its procedural aspects, and broader implications, drawing from primary sources and subsequent citations. Note: This is general information and not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for specific cases.
Before diving into the judgment, a quick primer: The ratio decidendi (Latin for the reason for deciding) is the legal principle or binding reason upon which a court's decision rests. It distinguishes from obiter dicta (incidental observations). In short judgments or dismissals, the ratio may be narrow, focusing on the outcome. For AIR 1986 SC 1753, the operative order is concise, but its citation in later cases reveals substantive influence. Commissioner Of Wealth Tax, Kanpur VS Chander Sen - 1986 0 Supreme(SC) 216
The judgment in AIR 1986 SC 1753 involves Special Leave Petition No. 5327 of 1978, arising in a wealth tax context under the Wealth Tax Act. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding:
The Special Leave Petition No. 5327 of 1978 must also fail and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs of this. Order accordingly. Commissioner Of Wealth Tax, Kanpur VS Chander Sen - 1986 0 Supreme(SC) 216
This forms the core ratio decidendi: the SLP lacks merit for special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution, resulting in dismissal without costs. No detailed facts, substantive arguments, or new precedents are elaborated in the provided excerpt, typical for summary dispositions of unmeritorious petitions. It reinforces the high threshold for Supreme Court interference. Commissioner Of Wealth Tax, Kanpur VS Chander Sen - 1986 0 Supreme(SC) 216
However, this case—Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Chander Sen—is renowned beyond its procedural outcome. It addresses whether property inherited by a male Hindu from his father post-HSA (1956) constitutes Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property vis-à-vis his sons, or remains self-acquired.
The narrow ratio, as per the operative order, is the rejection of special leave:- SLP No. 5327/1978 fails.- No costs awarded.- Indicates finality without merits review, implying consistency with prior holdings (must also fail). Commissioner Of Wealth Tax, Kanpur VS Chander Sen - 1986 0 Supreme(SC) 216
This procedural stance sets precedent for dismissing analogous unmeritorious SLPs, emphasizing no substantial question of law under Article 136.
Despite brevity, the judgment's influence stems from its observation on HSA:
...it would be difficult to hold that property which devolved on a Hindu under section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 would be HUF in his hand vis-a-vis his own sons. Shankar S/o Bhima Kulmi VS Motilal S/o Shankar Kulmi - 2012 Supreme(MP) 715
Key Holding: Property inherited by a son from his father after 1956 is self-acquired property, not ancestral HUF property forming a new coparcenary with his sons. This disrupts the pre-1956 Mitakshara coparcenary where sons had birth rights. Nand Kumar Shrivastava & Ors. vs Smt.Shakuntala Shrivastava & Ors. - 2022 Supreme(Online)(MP) 4631Shalini Sumant Raut VS Milind Sumant Raut - 2012 Supreme(Bom) 2326
Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji noted: under the Hindu Law, the moment a son is born, he gets a share in father's property and becomes part of the coparcenary. But HSA changes this for post-1956 devolutions. Nand Kumar Shrivastava & Ors. vs Smt.Shakuntala Shrivastava & Ors. - 2022 Supreme(Online)(MP) 4631
AIR 1986 SC 1753 is frequently invoked in property disputes:
In eviction disputes, it's distinguished but cited for property character. SHARMA MONTESSORI SCHOOL & ORIENTAL COLLEGE SOCIETY VS UNION OF INDIA - 2012 Supreme(Del) 1933
Use in appeals: Courts uphold lower findings if evidence supports self-ownership. Roshan Lal VS Ratto alias Rattan Chand - 2014 Supreme(HP) 200
This judgment underscores HSA's shift from joint family to individual rights, promoting clarity in property law. For deeper analysis, review SCC reports or consult experts. Stay informed on evolving Hindu law!
Word count approx. 1050. Sources cited per document IDs provided.
#AIR1986SC1753, #ChanderSenCase, #HinduSuccessionAct
This is the ratio of the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur etc. v. Chander Sen AIR 1986 SC 1753 and Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar AIR 1987 SC 558. ... , 1986 AIR 1753 and Yudhister Vs. Ashok Kumar, 1987 AIR 558 which say that if a person inherited property from his paternal ancestor after passing of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the inheritance will be as a self-acquired property and not as ....
The Supreme Court has specifically laid down this ratio in the judgments in the cases of Commissioner of Wealth Tax Etc. Vs. Chander Sen Etc. AIR 1986 SC 1753 and Yudhishter Vs. ... Ashok Kumar AIR 1987 SC 558 by observing that merely because a person who receives ancestral properties after passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the person who inherits will not receive the properties as HUF properties but as self-acquired properties i.e ancestral ... the plaintiff can have any rights to the properti....
This regular second appeal is confined to the claim of the plaintiff- respondent qua house measuring 27’ x 10’ double storeyed having slate roof consisting of three rooms in the lower storey and three rooms in the upper storey situate in khata No. 198 min, khatauni No. 412 min, khasra Nos. 1753 ... Mathayan, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 712 : AIR 1992 SC 115. ... 10. In view of my above findings, the substantial questions of law, as framed above, are answered accordingly.
Chander Sen Ors., 1986 AIR 1753 and Yudhister Vs. ... Chander SenAIR 1986 SC 1753 and Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar AIR 1987 SC 558. ... This is the ratio of the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur etc. v. ... 2012:DHC:5555 CS(OS) No.2329/1999 Page 5 of 6 defendant no. 1, are in fact self-acquired properties in the hands of defendant....
The Supreme Court has specifically laid down this ratio in the judgments in the cases of Commissioner of Wealth Tax Etc. Vs. Chander Sen Etc. AIR 1986 SC 1753 and Yudhishter Vs. ... Ashok Kumar AIR 1987 SC 558 by observing that merely because a person who receives ancestral properties after passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the person who inherits will not ... by the defendant from his own father inasmuch as inheritance of properties by the defendant from his ancesto....
Chander Sen and Others, AIR 1986 SC 1753 . ... Chander Sen and Others, AIR 1986 SC 1753 as the properties had not been acquired by the assessee by intestate succession, but under a testamentary disposition ?" ... 2. ... Chander Sen and Others, AIR 1986 SC 1753 to hold that, in such a situation, the property obtained by the assessee would be his separate property and, therefore, the income therefrom also would be his ... Chander Sen ....
Chander Sen, (1986) 3 SCC 567: (AIR 1986 SC 1753), where one of us (Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.) observed that under the Hindu Law, the moment a son is born, he gets a share in father's property and becomes part of the coparcenary. ... Chander Sen etc., (AIR 1986 SC 1753), and has held as under :-- "19. It is necessary to bear in mind the Preamble to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. ... Ashok Kumar (AIR 1987 SC 558), has again considered the question and ....
Similar observations were made in AIR 1929 All 83. 29. In Chinnappain vs. ... The primary object is to This is a digitally signed Judgement. ... In Discovery affidavit dated This is a digitally signed Judgement. ... It specifically provides that in case This is a digitally signed Judgement. ... It is asserted that in respect of these documents it This is a digitally signed Judgement.
AIR 2007 SC 1753. ... AIR 1986 SC 872. ... 6. ... AIR 2007 SC 1753 and T. Anjanappa & ors. v. Somalingappa & Anr. (2006) 7 SCC 570. ... 9. ... AIR 1986 SC 872 is misplaced because the definition of “public premises” in the Public Premises Act, makes it clear that as per Section 2(c) of Public Premises Act, the public premises includes Government Land as well as the building raised thereon ... Thus, applying the ratio of decision....
(CRL) 1753/2021 Page 4 of 16 This is a digitally signed Judgement. ... (CRL) 1753/2021 Page 5 of 16 This is a digitally signed Judgement. ... (CRL) 1753/2021 Page 6 of 16 ....
This has been held by the Supreme Court in its judgments in the cases of Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur etc. Vs. Chander Sen Etc. AIR 1986 SC 1753 and Yudhishter Vs. Ashok Kumar AIR 1987 SC 558. Supreme Court in these judgments has held that after passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, if any property is inherited by a male person from his paternal ancestor, he inherits the same as a self -acquired property and not as an HUF property. Nothing has been shown to me on behalf of the appellants that the appellants/defendants had pleaded in the written statement that the....
In my opinion, therefore there is really no inconsistency in the earlier Will Ex.OW4/1 and the subject/later Will Ex.P1 with respect to which probate has been prayed. Vs. Chander Sen & Ors. AIR 1986 SC 1753 and Yudhishter Vs. Ashok Kumar AIR 1987 SC 558. There is therefore nothing inconsistent in an ancestral property being taken as a self-owned property and this the testator could have done unless the case of the objectors/respondents was that the properties were inherited by the testator before 1956 or that there had existed a hindu undivided family and whose existence wa....
20. Ms. Iyer on behalf of the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 as also Mr. Divekar on behalf of plaintiff No.4 drew my attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Kanpur Vs. They argued that the property of a Hindu male succeeds to his heirs and would not form the HUF of that heir. Chander Sen AIR 1986 SC 1753 relating to partition of joint family business.
Chander Sen, AIR 1986 SC 1753, their Lordships held :- Following the earlier Apex Court decision in Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur vs. "-----------it would be difficult to hold that property which devolved on a Hindu under section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 would be HUF in his hand vis-a-vis his own sons. If that be the position then the property which devolved upon the father of the respondent in the instant case on the demise of his grandfather could not be said to be HUF property."
4. The next contention of the learned counsel is that since the property is not available for partition specially in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Wealth tax, Kanpur vs. Chander Sen, reported in AIR 1986 SC 1753, paragraph-16A. The said decision is while deciding the case• on merit and not at the stage of rejection of the plaint outright under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
