Ram Chandra Singh Vs Savitri Devi and Ors (2003) 8 SCC 319

Effect of fraud on court - Counsel " submit that the respondents, having obtained a decree by practising fraud on the court, cannot be allowed to take the benefit thereof. Having regard to the fact that the father of the mortgagor died in the year 1944, the learned counsel would urge, the question of his sisters becoming his co-sharers did not arise as the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 did not come into force"-
"Fraud as is well-known vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwells together. 16. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the other person, or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of former either by word or letter. 17. It is also well settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. Indeed, innocent misrepresentation may also give reason to claim relief against fraud. 18. A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by willfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations which he knows to be false, and injury ensues therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad."-
"In Derry v. Peek, (1889) 14 AC 337, if was held: In an 'action of deceit the plaintiff must prove actual fraud. Fraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made knowingly, or without belief in its truth, or recklessly, without caring whether it be true or false. A false statement, made through carelessness and without reasonable ground for believing it to be true, may be evidence of fraud but does not necessarily amount to fraud. Such a statement, if made in the honest belief that it is true, is not fraudulent and does not render the person make it liable to an action of deceit."-
"Kerr on Fraud and Mistake at page 23, it is stated: "The true and only sound principle to be derived from the cases represented by Slim v. Croucher is this that a representation is fraudulent not only when the person making it knows it to be false, but also when, as Jessel, M.R., pointed out, he ought to have known, or must be taken to have known, that it was false. This is a sound and intelligible principle, and is, moreover, not inconsistent with Derry v. Peek, A false statement which a person ought to have known was false, and which he must therefore be taken to have known was false, cannot be said to be honestly believed in. "A consideration of the grounds of belief", said Lord Herschell, "is no doubt an important aid in ascertaining whether the belief was really entertained. A man's mere assertion that he believed the statement he made to be true is not accepted as conclusive proof that he did so." 21. In Bigelow on Fraudulent Conveyances at page 1, it is stated : "If on the facts the average man would have intended wrong, that is enough." -
"24. An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of the others in relation to a property would, render the transaction void ab initio. Fraud and deception are synonymous.."-
"Although in a given case a deception may not amount to fraud, fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine including res-judicata..."

Ganduri Koteshwaramma Vs. Chakiri Yanadi

Decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 15.06.11- Hindu succession Act- section 6-
there is no impediment for the court to amend the preliminary decree or pass another preliminary decree redetermining the rights and interests of the parties having regard to the changed situation...- in this case preliminary was passed before the amendment of 2005- thus it was held that same is not barred to passing a final decree on the basis of amendment

Ramabai Padmakar Patil Vs Rukminibai Vishnu Vekhande

A will is executed to alter the mode of succession and by the very nature of things it is bound to result in either reducing or depriving the share of a natural heir. If a person intends his property to pass to his natural heirs, there is no necessity at all of executing a will. It is true that a propounder of the will has to remove all suspicious circumstances. Suspicion means doubt, conjecture or mistrust. But the fact that natural heirs have either been excluded or a lesser share has been given to them, by itself without anything more, cannot be held to be a suspicious circumstance, especially in a case where the bequest has been made in favour of an offspring.

HSA-Sec14 Vaddeboyina Tulasamma v. Vaddeboyina Sesha Reddi, AIR 1977(SC) 1944 properties in question were acquired by the appellant under the compromise in lieu or satisfaction of her right of maintenance, it is sub-section (1) and not sub-section (2) of Section 14 which would be applicable and hence the appellant must be deemed to have become full owner of the properties notwithstanding that the compromise prescribed a limited interest for her in the properties. (1) that a Hindu woman's right to maintenance is a personal obligation so far as the husband is concerned, and it is his duty to maintain her even if he has no property. If the husband has property then the right of the widow to maintenance becomes an equitable charge on the property and any person who succeeds to the property carries with it the legal obligation to maintain the widow; (2) though the widow's right to maintenance is not a right to property but it is undoubtedly a pre-existing right in property, i. e. it is a jus and rem not jus in rem and it can be enforced by the widow who can get a charge created for her maintenance on the property either by an agreement or by obtaining a decree from the civil court; (3) that the right of maintenance is a matter of moment and is of such importance that even if the joint property is sold and the purchaser has notice of the widow's right to maintenance, the purchaser is legally bound to provide for her maintenance; (4) that the right to maintenance is undoubtedly a pre-existing right which existed in the Hindu Law long before the passing of the Act of 1937 or the Act of 1946, and is, therefore, a pre-existing right ; (5) that the right to maintenance flows from the social and temporal relationship between the husband and the wife by virtue of which the wife becomes a sort of co-owner in the property of her husband, though her coownership is of a subordinate nature; and (6) that where a Hindu widow is in possession of the property of her husband, she is entitled to retain the possession in lieu of her maintenance unless the person who succeeds to property or purchases the same is in a position to make due arrangements for her maintenance.

HSA-Sec14 Rangaswami Naicker v. Chinnammal, AIR 1964 Mad 387, 'only to remove the disability of women imposed by law and not to interfere with contracts, grants or decrees etc. by virtue of which a women's right was restricted"

Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Section 14(1) Palchuri Henumayamma v. Tadikamalla Kotlingam, AIR 2001(SC) 3062 Recitals in the Will providing that the wife of the testator should enjoy all his properties as her life estate and that only after her death his property be divided between his daughters. The Will settled properties on the widow for her maintenance.