Just a moment...

Top
Help
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Court affirms Vizianagram Estate impartibility, recognizes regalia jewels, and clarifies Madras Estates Act application.</h1> <h3>Pushavathi Viziaram Gajapathi Raj Manne Sultan Bahadur and Ors. Versus Pushavathi Visweswar Gajapathi Raj and Ors.</h3> The court affirmed the impartibility of the Vizianagram Estate, recognizing the incorporation of certain properties. Jewels were classified as regalia, ... - Issues Involved:1. Impartibility of the Vizianagram Estate and its properties.2. Incorporation of subsequently acquired properties into the impartible estate.3. Classification and partition of jewels, including claims of regalia and stridhan.4. Ownership and partition of specific buildings.5. Application of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948.6. Claims and entitlements of the respective parties.Detailed Analysis:1. Impartibility of the Vizianagram Estate and its Properties:The court reaffirmed that an estate impartible by custom cannot be the separate or exclusive property of the holder. It remains part of the joint estate of the undivided Hindu family, with rights of survivorship still applicable. The estate's impartibility was recognized under the Madras Impartible Estates Act II of 1904, which included all accretions made prior to 1897.2. Incorporation of Subsequently Acquired Properties:The court held that the principle of incorporation applies to immovable properties, where the holder's intention to incorporate such properties into the impartible estate must be proven. The Prince of Wales Market and permanent leasehold rights in nine villages were deemed incorporated into the estate, supported by evidence of the holder's intention and conduct. However, the Admirality House, Waltair House, and Elk House were not incorporated as the plaintiff failed to prove the incorporation intention.3. Classification and Partition of Jewels:The court recognized the family custom treating certain jewels as regalia, making them impartible. The plaintiff's claim for 38 jewels as regalia was upheld, supported by historical documents and family conduct. Defendant No. 4's claim to 12 jewels as stridhan was also recognized by consent, subject to certain conditions.4. Ownership and Partition of Specific Buildings:The plaintiff's claim that five buildings outside the Vizianagram Zamindari limits were impartible was rejected. The court found no evidence of incorporation intention for these buildings. The buildings included the Admirality House, Waltair House, Elk House, Little Shoreham, and the Highlands.5. Application of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948:The court clarified that the buildings falling under Section 18(4) of the Act vest in the person who owned them immediately before the notified date, which refers to the landholder. Defendants 1 and 2 could not claim a share in these buildings as they were not considered landholders under the Act.6. Claims and Entitlements of the Respective Parties:The court addressed the claims of the respective parties:- Plaintiff's appeals regarding the five buildings were dismissed.- Defendants 1 and 2's appeals challenging the impartibility of certain properties and jewels were dismissed.- Defendant No. 4's appeal was resolved by consent, recognizing her claim to 12 jewels as stridhan.Conclusion:The court affirmed the impartibility of the Vizianagram Estate and recognized the incorporation of certain properties into the estate. The classification of jewels as regalia was upheld, and specific claims of stridhan were recognized. The plaintiff's claims regarding the incorporation of certain buildings were rejected. The application of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, was clarified, and the respective claims and entitlements of the parties were addressed comprehensively.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found