HomeCLAT PGHindu Law Practice Questions for CLAT PG 2021

Hindu Law Practice Questions for CLAT PG 2021

1 minutes read

Hindu Law Practice Questions for CLAT PG 2021

Hindu Law Practice Questions for CLAT PG 2020

Passage​​ 

(Excerpted from the judgment​​ M.Arumugam vs Ammaniammal And Ors)

In Gurupad Khandappa Magdum vs. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum and Ors​​ the main issue was as to what share a Hindu widow would get in terms of Sections 6 and 8 of the Succession Act. This Court held that the partition which was a deemed partition cannot be limited to the time immediately prior to the death of the deceased coparcenary but “all the consequences which flow from a real partition have to be logically worked out, which means that the share of the heirs must be ascertained on the basis that they had separated from one another and had received a share in the partition which had taken place during the life time of the deceased.”​​ The court​​ further held that the partition has to be treated and accepted as a concrete reality, something that cannot be recalled at a later stage.​​ In Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur and Ors. vs. Chander Sen and Ors​​ the dispute related to a joint family business between a father and son. This business was divided and thereafter, carried by a partnership firm of which both were partners. The father died leaving behind his son, two grandsons and a credit balance in the account of the firm. The issue that arose was whether the credit balance in the account left behind by the deceased was to be treated as joint family property or the property was to be distributed to Class­I legal heirs in accordance with Section 8 of the Succession Act. This Court held that Succession Act supersedes all Mitakshara law. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:​​ It would be difficult to hold today the property which devolved on a Hindu under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act would be HUF in his hand vis­à­vis his own son; that would amount to creating two classes among the heirs mentioned in class I, the male heirs in whose hands it will be joint Hindu family property and vis­à­vis son and female heirs with respect to whom no such concept could be applied or contemplated. It may be mentioned that heirs in class I of Schedule under Section 8 of the Act included widow, mother, daughter of predeceased son etc.”​​ (1986) Accordingly, it was directed that the credit balance would be inherited in terms of Section 8 of the Succession Act.​​ In Appropriate Authority (IT Deptt) And Others vs. M. Arifulla And Others3 the issue which arose was whether the property inherited in terms​​ of Sections 6 and 8 of the Succession Act was to be treated as the property of co­owners or as joint family property. The Court held as follows:­ “This Court has held in CWT vs. Chander Sen that a property devolving under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, is the individual property of the person who inherits the same and not that of the HUF. In fact, in the special leave petition, it is admitted that respondents 2 to 5 inherited the property in question from the said T.M. Doraiswami. Hence, they held it as tenants­in­common and not as joint tenants.”

Questions

  • In the case​​ of Maneka Gandhi v. Indira Gandhi 1984. It was held that Sanjay Gandhi was a:

  • Parsi, because his father was a Parsi and he was bought up as a Parsi

  • Jew, because his father was a Jew and he was bought up as a Jew

  • Hindu, because both his parents were hindu

  • Hindu, because one of his parents was hindu and he was bought up as hindu

Ans. d

  • Who cannot reopen a partition?

  • Adopted son

  • Absentee coparcener

  • Mother

  • Minor coparcener

Ans. c

  • The deceased Hindu in the Hindu Law of Succession is known as:

  • Propositus

  • Agnate

  • Cognate

  • None of the above

Ans. a

  • Which is not a mode of partition?

  • Spoken words

  • Renunciation of share in the JFP by a coparcener

  • Conversion of a coparcener to a ​​ non hindu religion​​ 

  • Death of a coparcener

Ans. d

  • A Karta is the manager of the joint family property.​​ Is he also​​ the guardian of the minor members of the joint family

  • Yes

  • No

  • May be

  • Not sure

Ans. b

  • Section 22 of Hindu Succession Act 1956 provides for:

  • Right of pre-emption among co heirs

  • Presumption in cases of simultaneous deaths

  • Disqualifications of heirs

  • None of the above

Ans. a

  • Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 incorporates:

  • Disqualified heirs

  • Doctrine of escheat

  • Presumption in cases of simultaneous deaths

  • None of the above

Ans. b

  • Empowered court to appoint guardians is:

  • District courts

  • High courts

  • Both a and b

  • None of the above

Ans. c

  • The natural guardian of a minor Hindu boy is:

  • Only mother

  • Only father

  • Grandfather

  • Father and mother both

Ans. b

  • The judgement given in the passage has been pronounced by Justice:

  • Ashok Bhushan

  • Surya Kant

  • DY Chandrachud

  • Deepak Gupta

Ans. d

 

Visit our complete collection of legal reasoning questions and posts.

Read our legal reasoning post on void agreements and the practice questions here

Read CLATapult’s post on offer and acceptance here. Also, try their mocks for more legal reasoning practice questions.

Aditya Anand
Aditya Anand
Aditya is 93.1% sure that he knows Japanese. We think he speaks Japanese in Bhojpuri accent.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Golden Gate University - upGrad
Golden Gate University - upGrad
Lawctopus Law School
Lawctopus Law School

Cracking the CLAT!

Get access to all major CLAT updates, study material, and more.

Effective Guide to

You can unsubscribe any time.

PLEASE CONFIRM YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS

Takes a second to click the verification link 

sent to your email.