http://hanumant.com/articles/Umang%20Singh%20-%20Devolution%20of%20the%20property%20of%20a%20Female.pdf
Mitakshara defines the concept of property in a socialistic
manner where as Dayabhaga perceives it in an individualistic manner. In Raguaddha v. Brogo
Kishoro1876 IA 153
it has been held by the Apex Court that the Hindu family is not joint only in estate but
also in food and worship. Mere fact that the members of the family are living away from each
other does not means that the family is not a joint family. The court in Bhagwan Dayal v. Ms.
Reoti Devi,6 AIR 1962 SC 287
held that there is a general presumption that every Hindu family is a joint family
unless contrary is proved. The contrary here refers to the general partition of the property.
Print Page
Mitakshara defines the concept of property in a socialistic
manner where as Dayabhaga perceives it in an individualistic manner. In Raguaddha v. Brogo
Kishoro1876 IA 153
it has been held by the Apex Court that the Hindu family is not joint only in estate but
also in food and worship. Mere fact that the members of the family are living away from each
other does not means that the family is not a joint family. The court in Bhagwan Dayal v. Ms.
Reoti Devi,6 AIR 1962 SC 287
held that there is a general presumption that every Hindu family is a joint family
unless contrary is proved. The contrary here refers to the general partition of the property.
No comments:
Post a Comment