<?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>1943 (9) TMI 9 - Madras High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172829</link>
    <description>The Hindu Women&#039;s Rights to Property Act, 1937, as amended, was treated as valid and was applied to the deceased&#039;s separate property in British India, because his personal estate was regarded as property over which he had full dispositive power. The Act was construed as territorially confined to property within British India, so it did not extend to moveable assets outside that territory. Trust properties were excluded from the deceased&#039;s separate property and did not pass as a share to the plaintiff; succession to them followed the trust instruments and trusteeship rules. Directions keeping the estate under Court control until safeguards were furnished were unsustainable, as the heirs were entitled to possession and partition without such a prior condition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Sep 1943 00:00:00 +0630</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Sep 2015 11:08:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=395563" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1943 (9) TMI 9 - Madras High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172829</link>
      <description>The Hindu Women&#039;s Rights to Property Act, 1937, as amended, was treated as valid and was applied to the deceased&#039;s separate property in British India, because his personal estate was regarded as property over which he had full dispositive power. The Act was construed as territorially confined to property within British India, so it did not extend to moveable assets outside that territory. Trust properties were excluded from the deceased&#039;s separate property and did not pass as a share to the plaintiff; succession to them followed the trust instruments and trusteeship rules. Directions keeping the estate under Court control until safeguards were furnished were unsustainable, as the heirs were entitled to possession and partition without such a prior condition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Sep 1943 00:00:00 +0630</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172829</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>