<?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>2001 (4) TMI 933 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194376</link>
    <description>The Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 was construed to exclude a married daughter from her parents&#039; &quot;family&quot; for ceiling and clubbing purposes because a married woman is treated as an independent legal unit, and including her would produce inconsistent clubbing of holdings with both parental and marital families. The Act&#039;s exception for a major married son was read to require that he be major, married and separated by partition or otherwise before the cut-off date, but the sequence of those events was immaterial so long as all conditions were satisfied before that date. The ordinary and reasonable meaning of &quot;family&quot; controlled the interpretation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Sep 2017 12:07:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=488324" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (4) TMI 933 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194376</link>
      <description>The Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 was construed to exclude a married daughter from her parents&#039; &quot;family&quot; for ceiling and clubbing purposes because a married woman is treated as an independent legal unit, and including her would produce inconsistent clubbing of holdings with both parental and marital families. The Act&#039;s exception for a major married son was read to require that he be major, married and separated by partition or otherwise before the cut-off date, but the sequence of those events was immaterial so long as all conditions were satisfied before that date. The ordinary and reasonable meaning of &quot;family&quot; controlled the interpretation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194376</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>