<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1991 (10) TMI 305 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168352</link>
    <description>Property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband devolves, on her dying intestate without issue, on the husband&#039;s heirs under Section 15(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, not by escheat to the Government under Section 29, because escheat applies only on a complete failure of heirs. Section 15(1) states the general succession scheme, while Section 15(2)(b) creates a special rule for such inherited property and Section 16 governs the order among the husband&#039;s heirs. The text also notes that a decree for possession against mortgagee defendants could not be sustained where the subsistence of the mortgage and the right of redemption had been expressly left open.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Oct 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2015 17:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=376760" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (10) TMI 305 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168352</link>
      <description>Property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband devolves, on her dying intestate without issue, on the husband&#039;s heirs under Section 15(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, not by escheat to the Government under Section 29, because escheat applies only on a complete failure of heirs. Section 15(1) states the general succession scheme, while Section 15(2)(b) creates a special rule for such inherited property and Section 16 governs the order among the husband&#039;s heirs. The text also notes that a decree for possession against mortgagee defendants could not be sustained where the subsistence of the mortgage and the right of redemption had been expressly left open.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Oct 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168352</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>