<?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>1966 (3) TMI 81 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179604</link>
    <description>A bona fide family arrangement entered into to preserve family peace, avoid dispute, and formalise an understanding among family members was treated as valid and binding, even without a strict existing conflict of legal claims. The arrangement was supported by the family&#039;s circumstances and the parties&#039; settled understanding, so it was upheld as a true family settlement. The document also did not require registration because it did not itself create, declare, assign, limit, or extinguish any present interest in immovable property; it merely recorded that the family would remain joint and that shares would be taken on a future partition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Mar 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Mar 2016 11:00:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=419092" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1966 (3) TMI 81 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179604</link>
      <description>A bona fide family arrangement entered into to preserve family peace, avoid dispute, and formalise an understanding among family members was treated as valid and binding, even without a strict existing conflict of legal claims. The arrangement was supported by the family&#039;s circumstances and the parties&#039; settled understanding, so it was upheld as a true family settlement. The document also did not require registration because it did not itself create, declare, assign, limit, or extinguish any present interest in immovable property; it merely recorded that the family would remain joint and that shares would be taken on a future partition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Mar 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179604</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>