Family Law.txt

Important

1. Elucidate the character of gains of learning of a member of a Hindu Joint family both before and aftger the passing of the Hindu Gains of Learning Act, 1930. 2. “He who inherits property also offers the Pinda” Elucidate in the light of Hindu Succession Act 3. Enumerate the Elucidate the Class I heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and state the principles applicable to the distribution of property among the Class I heirs 4. “ Hindu joint family is purely a creature of custom and does not arise by act of parties” Explain SHORT QUESTIONS 1. a. Instances of legal necessity b. Diff between joint family and Coparcenary c. Factors need to be remembered while effecting a notional partition 2. What are the propositions that were approved by the Privy Council in Suraj Bansi Koer Vs Sheo Proshad, 1879, 6. I.A .88 and how it was modified by the Supreme Court in Luhar Amrit Lal Nagji Vs. Doshi Jayantilal Jethalal and others, AIR 1960 S.C .964 3. Liability of the sons in the following : a. A Hindu father incurs debts for treatment of his venereal disease b. A Hindu father acknowledges pre-partitioned debts after partition with his sons 4. Critically examine the statement “ Hindu joint family is purely a creature of custom and does not arise by act of parties “ 5. a. Whether a junior member can act as Karta in a Mitakshara joint family with relevant case law b. Diff between joint family and Coparcenary c. Doctrine of Notional Partitiion

6. In a Joint Hindu family A and B, two brothers . . They inherited property from their mother’s father . Here B died leaving behind his widow , Bw and his brother A.. Can A the surviving brother of B, claim the property of the deceased B . Explain the principle explained by the Privy Council In this regard. 7. A died leaving behind his two widows W1 and W2; his father F, mother M, his son S1, son and daughter of predeceased son S2 , daughter of predeceased daughter, D2.

unmarried daughter D1 and

Distribute the property according to

Hindu Succession Act, 1956, 8. Krishna Mohun erected a dam and obstructed the passage of water to Ramnarayana’s land. Ramnarayana sued for and obtained a decree for damages against Krishna Mohun. Later Krishna Mohun died and Vijay, the son of Krishna Mohun was sought to be made liable. Whether Vijay is liable to make good the loss ?

Give reasons for supporting or denying the liability arising out of

such act, basing upon the decided case on this point.