<?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>2017 (3) TMI 1189 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340686</link>
    <description>A plaint seeking partition failed because the pleadings and family settlement did not clearly establish that the suit property had become Hindu undivided family or joint Hindu family property. The court noted that mere inheritance by brothers, or a recital referring to joint family property, is insufficient to prove creation of an HUF; there must be a clear and unequivocal act showing abandonment of separate ownership and throwing the property into the common hotchpotch. On the pleaded facts, including the absence of wife or children for one defendant at the relevant time, the alleged conversion into HUF property was inconsistent and not made out. The suit was therefore liable to dismissal, without prejudice to other rights.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Mar 2017 17:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=462644" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 1189 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340686</link>
      <description>A plaint seeking partition failed because the pleadings and family settlement did not clearly establish that the suit property had become Hindu undivided family or joint Hindu family property. The court noted that mere inheritance by brothers, or a recital referring to joint family property, is insufficient to prove creation of an HUF; there must be a clear and unequivocal act showing abandonment of separate ownership and throwing the property into the common hotchpotch. On the pleaded facts, including the absence of wife or children for one defendant at the relevant time, the alleged conversion into HUF property was inconsistent and not made out. The suit was therefore liable to dismissal, without prejudice to other rights.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340686</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>