<?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>1958 (9) TMI 89 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187641</link>
    <description>A father&#039;s negligent liability as managing director of a co-operative bank was treated as a just debt, not an avyavaharika debt, because it was neither immoral nor illegal; the sons remained bound. The note also states that a Hindu son&#039;s pious obligation to discharge the father&#039;s just debts continues after partition or severance of status unless the debt is immoral or arrangements for payment were made at partition, so execution was not defeated by intervening partition. On the sale under section 155 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, the extent of property sold depended on what was actually intended and proclaimed for sale; on the documents, the whole bungalow passed, not merely the father&#039;s fractional interest.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 29 Oct 2016 11:59:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=446340" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1958 (9) TMI 89 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187641</link>
      <description>A father&#039;s negligent liability as managing director of a co-operative bank was treated as a just debt, not an avyavaharika debt, because it was neither immoral nor illegal; the sons remained bound. The note also states that a Hindu son&#039;s pious obligation to discharge the father&#039;s just debts continues after partition or severance of status unless the debt is immoral or arrangements for payment were made at partition, so execution was not defeated by intervening partition. On the sale under section 155 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, the extent of property sold depended on what was actually intended and proclaimed for sale; on the documents, the whole bungalow passed, not merely the father&#039;s fractional interest.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187641</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>