| Case Name | Section | Rule(s) | Case Brief |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bhagwan Dayal v. Reoti Devi | 2 | Physical disability does not disqualify a person from inheritance. | In this case, the issue was whether a person with physical disability can inherit property. Earlier Hindu law disqualified such persons. The court examined the effect of the 1928 Act. It held that physical defects like blindness or deafness are no longer grounds to deny inheritance. The Act removed such unfair disqualifications. The person was allowed to inherit property. This case highlights the purpose of the Act to ensure fairness. |
| Surjit Lal Chhabra v. Commissioner of Income Tax | 2 | Property rights of disabled persons must be recognised fully. | In this case, the court examined inheritance rights in the context of tax law. The issue involved recognition of property ownership. The court held that once a person is legally entitled to inherit, their rights cannot be restricted due to disability. The Act ensures equal property rights. This case supports equal treatment in inheritance. |
| Commissioner of Income Tax v. Seth Govind Ram | 2 | Legal heirs cannot be denied rights based on old disqualifications. | This case involved inheritance and tax assessment. The question was whether certain heirs could be excluded. The court held that old Hindu law disqualifications no longer apply after the Act. Eligible heirs must be recognised. The case confirms removal of traditional restrictions. |
| Narendrakumar J. Modi v. Commissioner of Income Tax | 2 | Inheritance rights must follow updated law removing disabilities. | In this case, the court examined inheritance claims under tax law. It applied the 1928 Act to remove earlier disqualifications. The court held that modern law must be followed. Disabled persons have equal rights. This case reinforces the purpose of the Act. |
| Sushil Kumari Dang v. Prem Kumar | 2 | Gender or personal conditions cannot deny inheritance rights. | In this case, inheritance was challenged on personal grounds. The court examined whether such grounds are valid. It held that unfair disqualifications are removed by law. The Act promotes equality. The claimant was allowed inheritance. This case supports inclusive approach. |
Case Name
Bhagwan Dayal v. Reoti Devi
Section
2
Rule(s)
Physical disability does not disqualify a person from inheritance.
Case Brief
In this case, the issue was whether a person with physical disability can inherit property. Earlier Hindu law disqualified such persons. The court examined the effect of the 1928 Act. It held that physical defects like blindness or deafness are no longer grounds to deny inheritance. The Act removed such unfair disqualifications. The person was allowed to inherit property. This case highlights the purpose of the Act to ensure fairness.
Case Name
Surjit Lal Chhabra v. Commissioner of Income Tax
Section
2
Rule(s)
Property rights of disabled persons must be recognised fully.
Case Brief
In this case, the court examined inheritance rights in the context of tax law. The issue involved recognition of property ownership. The court held that once a person is legally entitled to inherit, their rights cannot be restricted due to disability. The Act ensures equal property rights. This case supports equal treatment in inheritance.
Case Name
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Seth Govind Ram
Section
2
Rule(s)
Legal heirs cannot be denied rights based on old disqualifications.
Case Brief
This case involved inheritance and tax assessment. The question was whether certain heirs could be excluded. The court held that old Hindu law disqualifications no longer apply after the Act. Eligible heirs must be recognised. The case confirms removal of traditional restrictions.
Case Name
Narendrakumar J. Modi v. Commissioner of Income Tax
Section
2
Rule(s)
Inheritance rights must follow updated law removing disabilities.
Case Brief
In this case, the court examined inheritance claims under tax law. It applied the 1928 Act to remove earlier disqualifications. The court held that modern law must be followed. Disabled persons have equal rights. This case reinforces the purpose of the Act.
Case Name
Sushil Kumari Dang v. Prem Kumar
Section
2
Rule(s)
Gender or personal conditions cannot deny inheritance rights.
Case Brief
In this case, inheritance was challenged on personal grounds. The court examined whether such grounds are valid. It held that unfair disqualifications are removed by law. The Act promotes equality. The claimant was allowed inheritance. This case supports inclusive approach.