Law:

Section:

Section 2(xii) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 - Gift - 'R' and his brother 'V' and sons and daughter of 'V', constituted joint HUF governed by Mitakshara school of Hindu law - 'R' executed deed of settlement in favour of 'V' conveying his entire undivided interest in coparcenary reserving life interest to himself - Whether gift made by 'R' to 'V' should be construed as renunciation of his undivided interest in coparcenary in favour of 'V' and his sons who were remaining coparceners and, therefore, gift was valid and accordingly, consent of other coparceners was immaterial - Held, yes FACTS Two brothers, 'R' and 'V' and the sons and daughters of the latter constituted a joint HUF governed by the Mitakshara school of Hindu law. In May, 1959, 'R' executed a deed of settlement in favour of his brother, 'V', conveying his entire undivided interest in the coparcenary reserving a life interest to himself and also providing that after his death, his brother should maintain his wife. 'R' died in January, 1965, and shortly thereafter his brother, 'V', also died in March, 1965. After the death of 'R' differences arose between his widow and the respondent No. 1, as a result of which the widow of 'R' demanded a partition of her husband's share which was gifted by her husband to 'V' and filed a suit in that respect after cancelling the deed of settlement, on the ground that it was a void document under the Hindu law. The trial court held that the deed of settlement was void and inoperative under the Hindu law in the absence of consent of the other coparceners. It further, held that even assuming that the deed of settlement was valid and binding on the plaintiff, the plaintiff was entitled to the alternative relief of maintenance and separate residence under section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act, as the plaintiff's husband was legally bound to maintain his wife and the plaintiff was entitled to enforce her maintenance claim with a charge on the properties in the suit. In that view of the matter, the Trial Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to sum per annum towards her maintenance and separate residence with a charge on the certain schedule properties of the plaint. On…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492