<?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>2009 (4) TMI 959 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182873</link>
    <description>Presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act was held unrebutted because the evidence did not prove non-access between the spouses; mere allegations of adultery or immoral conduct were insufficient, so the plaintiff&#039;s status as the deceased&#039;s son stood. A school leaving certificate was treated as admissible corroborative evidence of parentage and did not weaken the statutory presumption. The text also states that a male Hindu may validly bequeath ancestral or coparcenary property under Section 30 read with Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act, and that the suit challenging the mutation and will was barred by limitation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 May 2016 16:16:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=429105" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (4) TMI 959 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182873</link>
      <description>Presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act was held unrebutted because the evidence did not prove non-access between the spouses; mere allegations of adultery or immoral conduct were insufficient, so the plaintiff&#039;s status as the deceased&#039;s son stood. A school leaving certificate was treated as admissible corroborative evidence of parentage and did not weaken the statutory presumption. The text also states that a male Hindu may validly bequeath ancestral or coparcenary property under Section 30 read with Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act, and that the suit challenging the mutation and will was barred by limitation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182873</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>