Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Rohit Chauhan v. Surinder Singh (2013) SCC 419 - The Supreme Court held that upon the birth of a son, property becomes coparcenary property under the Hindu Succession Act, and the son acquires an interest in the property from birth. This case clarified that the son’s interest is automatic and not dependent on subsequent succession proceedings. 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 1360
Effect of Partition and Succession - The Court considered the implications of partition of coparcenary property in Rohit Chauhan, emphasizing that a coparcener's rights and the property's nature are governed by the Hindu Succession Act, especially after its amendments. It was noted that prior to the Act, property was governed by Mitakshara law, but post-1956, the property remains coparcenary unless partitioned. 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1022, 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 2574
Property Rights of Females - The judgments highlight that property possessed by a female Hindu is her absolute property, not joint family property, and thus not subject to partition under Hindu Succession Act. The case clarifies that the Hindu Succession Act does not treat female property as joint family property for partition purposes. 2024 0 Supreme(Pat) 650
Impact of Amendments to Hindu Succession Act - Post-2005 amendments, daughters are recognized as coparceners with equal rights in joint family property. The Court noted that prior to these amendments, only male members had coparcenary rights, and the law now grants daughters the same status, altering the traditional birthright theory. 2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 21587
Succession and Share Acquisition - The Court reaffirmed that after the 1956 Act, a son’s right to share in coparcenary property arises at birth, but the actual share is determined at the time of succession. The property remains coparcenary unless partitioned, and the rights are governed by the law in force at the time of succession. 2024 0 Supreme(Kar) 592, 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 2361
Legal Principles on Alienation and Sale - It was held that before the birth of a son, a father could deal with property as his own; after the son's birth, the son's rights are vested, and alienations made prior to his birth are not objected to by the son. The Court also clarified that alienations after the son’s birth are subject to his rights. 2023 0 Supreme(MP) 919, 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 2574
Judicial Clarifications on Property Rights of Women and Coparceners - The judgments emphasize that the law now recognizes daughters as coparceners, and property rights are not limited by traditional notions. The Court also clarified that property acquired by females is their absolute property, not joint family property, and cannot be partitioned under the Hindu Succession Act. 2024 0 Supreme(Pat) 650,
BABLOO @ RAVIKANT CHAUHAN AND 3 OTHERS Vs State - Allahabad
Analysis and Conclusion:The Supreme Court in Rohit Chauhan and related judgments has established that under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and its amendments, a son acquires coparcenary rights at birth, making the property coparcenary from that moment. The law has evolved to recognize daughters as coparceners post-2005 amendments, and property owned by females is their absolute property, not subject to joint family partition. These rulings clarify the legal position on succession, coparcenary rights, and property alienation, emphasizing the law’s shift towards gender equality and clarity in inheritance rights within Hindu law.
In the complex world of Hindu family law, succession disputes often hinge on the nature of property—whether it's or individual shares. A pivotal case that has sparked much debate is the Rohit Chauhan v. Surinder Singh & Ors. judgment () 9 SCC 419. Many wonder: What does the Rohit Chauhan judgment say about succession under the ? This blog post breaks it down, exploring key principles, subsequent clarifications, and practical implications for heirs navigating inheritance claims. While this provides general insights, consult a legal professional for advice tailored to your situation.
The governs property devolution among Hindus, focusing on coparceners' rights and property classification. Sections 4, 8, and 19 play central roles in determining succession outcomes. In Rohit Chauhan, the addressed arguments that a child's birth (defendant No. 4) automatically grants in ancestral property. The ruling suggested that upon a son's birth, the property becomes coparcenary, with the son acquiring an interest from birth. 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 1360
As noted in related proceedings, on the birth of a son, it becomes a co-parcenary.... 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 1049 This aligned with traditional , where a son's birth vests rights in . However, the judgment emphasized that pre-, property followed Mitakshara rules, but post-Act, it remains coparcenary unless partitioned. 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1022 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 2574
Before amendments, fathers could alienate property as their own prior to a son's birth; post-birth, the son's vested rights limited such actions. is sine qua non for sale of minor’s share in a . 2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 1884 2023 0 Supreme(MP) 919
While Rohit Chauhan initially seemed to bolster birth-based coparcenary claims, later rulings refined this view. In , the Court held that Rohit Chauhan did not fully account for mandatory provisions under Sections 4, 8, and 19. Upon a coparcener's death, transforms into shares among heirs—not . This shift means heirs hold individual portions, not undivided coparcenary interests. 2019 0 Supreme(Del) 379
Uttam established: when succession occurs under Section 8, the property is no longer treated as but as individual shares among heirs. 2019 0 Supreme(Del) 379 This overruled expansive readings of Rohit Chauhan, stressing property's nature at succession time.
Other cases echoed this. focused on female coparceners' rights post- amendments, bypassing Rohit Chauhan. 2019 0 Supreme(Del) 379 Meanwhile, referenced Rohit Chauhan but was critiqued for ignoring binding precedents like Uttam, violating . 2019 0 Supreme(Del) 379 2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 1062
The amendments to the Hindu Succession Act marked a sea change, granting daughters coparcener status equal to sons. Post- amendments, daughters are recognized as coparceners with equal rights in . 2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 21587 Prior, only males held birthrights; now, gender equality prevails, though actual shares crystallize at succession or partition. 2024 0 Supreme(Kar) 592 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 2361
Property held by a female Hindu remains her , not joint family estate subject to partition. 2024 0 Supreme(Pat) 650
Relying solely on Rohit Chauhan for birth-triggered can be misleading today. Subsequent rulings clarify that rights depend on property status during succession. Post-death, heirs typically inherit as , limiting claims to undivided family property.
Key implications include:- No Presumption of Jointness: There is no presumption as to and the initial burden is on the assertor to prove that the property is a . 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 1049- Alienation Limits: Fathers' pre-birth alienations stand, but post-birth sales must respect coparceners' interests. 2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 1884- Female Rights: Daughters now share equally; female-owned property stays absolute. 2024 0 Supreme(Pat) 650 2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 21587- Partition Effects: Once partitioned, property loses coparcenary character. 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1022
In practice, this affects partition suits, wills, and inheritance disputes. For instance, a son born after property acquisition may claim shares, but only if it remains joint at succession. Heirs must prove joint family nucleus and contributions. 2017 0 Supreme(MP) 10 2023 0 Supreme(All) 440
Rohit Chauhan reflected transitional jurisprudence, bridging pre- and post-Act eras. Yet, as courts like in Uttam noted, statutory mandates prevail. The amendment further democratized inheritance, aligning Hindu law with constitutional equality.
Related cases reinforce: No automatic coparcenary revival post-succession without reunion proof. Judges in and others listed Rohit Chauhan alongside modern precedents. 2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 1062
The Rohit Chauhan judgment illuminated coparcenary birthrights but has been nuanced by later decisions emphasizing succession mechanics under the Hindu Succession Act. Property often shifts from joint to individual upon a coparcener's death, impacting claims profoundly.
Key Takeaways:- Birth grants coparcenary interest, but succession under Section 8 divides as . 2019 0 Supreme(Del) 379- Post-, daughters equal sons as coparceners. 2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 21587- Prove ; no presumption exists. 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 1049- Female-held property is absolute, not partitionable. 2024 0 Supreme(Pat) 650
For those facing succession issues—like the Rohit Chauhan scenario—review Uttam and amendments. Always seek expert counsel, as outcomes vary by facts. References: 2019 0 Supreme(Del) 379 2017 0 Supreme(MP) 10 2023 0 Supreme(All) 440 2015 0 Supreme(SC) 1124
2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 1360 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 1049 2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 1062
This post offers general information, not legal advice. Laws evolve; verify with current statutes.
#RohitChauhanJudgment, #HinduSuccessionAct, #CoparcenaryRights
Lal Chand, (2006) 8 SCC 581, and Rohit Chauhan v. Surinder Singh (2013) 9 SCC 419, were cited for this purpose. ... In the case of “Rohit Chauhan Vs. Surinder Singh and Others” (supra), it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court, that the moment a son is born, the property becomes a coparcenary property and the son would acquire interest in that property. ... Puran and Others”, 2008(2) RCR (Civil) 99, “Rohit #....
In Rohit Chauhan (supra), the effect of partition of coparcenary property is considered. The facts are identical to the facts of the present case. ... Gulab Singh, till the birth of plaintiff Rohit Chauhan, was competent to sell, mortgage and deal with the property as his property in the manner he liked. ... Had he done so before the birth of plaintiff, Rohit Chauhan, he was not competen....
In this regard, the learned counsel relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Rohit Chauhan vs. Surinder Singh and Ors. reported in 2014 (1) PLJR 64 (SC). ... The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondents 1st set on the decision rendered in the case of Rohit Chauhan (supra) is completely misconceived as in the said case it has never been held that the property in the hand of a female Hindu woul....
The Supreme Court in the case of Rohit Chauhan v. Surinder Singh and others reported in (2013) 9 SCC 419 has held as under : 11. We have bestowed our consideration to the rival submissions and we find substance in the submission of Mr Rao. ... In the present case, the Civil Suit as well as the Regular Civil Appeal were already decided much prior to the amendment in section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, therefore, the amendment in section 6 o....
Gulab Singh, till the birth of plaintiff Rohit Chauhan, was competent to sell, mortgage and deal with the property as his property in the manner he liked. ... Had he done so before the birth of plaintiff, Rohit Chauhan, he was not competent to object to the alienation made by his father before he was born or begotten. ... If succession opened under the old Hindu law, i.e. prior to the commencement of the ....
But, the perusal of the judgement reveals that on the facts of that case, the succession had opened in the year 1910, much prior to the coming into force of the HINDU SUCCESSION ACT ,1956. Therefore, the said judgement may not, in our considered opinion, apply to the facts of the case. ... ACT and the succession opened on that date. ... Even that provision has now been repealed by the Hindu Succ....
In Rohit Chauhan v. ... The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ROHIT CHAUHAN v. ... Gulab Singh, till the birth of plaintiff Rohit Chauhan, was competent to sell, mortgage and deal with the property as his property in the manner he liked. ... Gulab Singh, till the birth of plaintiff Rohit Chauhan, was compete....
Order Date :- 22.1.2021 Rohit ... Anticipatory Bail Application The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants, Babloo @ Ravikant Chauhan, Dileep Chauhan, Tiger @ Nagendra Chauhan and Bagh Singh ... . - 1251 of 2021 Applicant :- Babloo @ Ravikant Chauhan And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. ... Having heard learned counsel for the parties....
JUDGEMENT Heard on the question of admission. 2. ... As laid down in the case of Rohit Chauhan vs. Surendar Singh and Another reported in AIR 2013 SC 3525. The relevant paras of the citation are reproduced as under :- “11. We have bestowed our consideration to the rival submission and we find substance in the submission of Mr. Rao. ... The amendment in Hindu Succession Act come into the force in 2006 thereby the daught....
Rohit Ahuja, DAG, Punjab, for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate; Ms. Deepika Chauhan; and Mr. Rohit Sapehiya, Advocate, for caveator/respondent No.5. **** VIKAS BAHL, J. ... Yes/No NARESH KUMAR 2023.01.28 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement
The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff relied on the judgment reported in (2007) 1 SCC 521 Appasaheb peerappa chamdgade Vs.Devendra peerappa chamdgade and others for the proposition that there is no presumption as to joint family property and the initial burden is on the assertor to prove that the property is a joint family property. He also relied on the judgment reported in (2013) 9 SCC 419 Rohit Chauhan Vs. However, on the birth of a son, it becomes a co-parcenary....
(ii) 2013 (9) SCC 419 - Rohit Chauhan Vs. Surinder Singh and others. (iii) 2018 (7) SCC 646 - Shyam Narayan Prasad Vs. Krishna Prasad and others. (iv) 2017 (3) CTC 170 - M.Krishnamoorthy Vs. K.Pondeepankar (i) 2009 (15) SCC 184 - M.Yogendra and others Vs. Leelamma N and others.
Rohit Chauhan v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2013 SCC Online Del 2016. Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (2019) 9 SCC 608; (b).
(f) Dhanasekaran vs. Manoranjithammal and Others, 1992 AIR (Madras) 214 According to him, legal necessity is sine qua non for sale of minor’s share in a joint family property. (g) Rohit Chauhan vs. Surinder Singh and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 419 Referring to the aforesaid decisions, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that the relief of specific performance of a minor share in a joint family property cannot be granted without establishing that there was le....
36. PW-14- Sub Inspector, Rohit Chauhan in his statement stated that on 29.01.2011 Hiralal submitted a written report before him which was endorsed by SHO Shri Pramod Swami, on which, he registered an FIR (Exhibit-P-90).
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
