<?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>1977 (10) TMI 119 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198814</link>
    <description>Where a widow inherited a Hindu male&#039;s estate and died after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force, succession was governed by Section 8 and the Act&#039;s scheme displaced earlier Hindu reversionary rules. The statutory heir succeeding on the widow&#039;s death took as full owner, became a fresh stock of descent, and subsequent devolution had to be traced under Section 15, not by reversion. The pleading also made clear that later heirs in the same class are excluded once an earlier item heir is available. A proposed second-appeal amendment introducing a new and inconsistent title was treated as an afterthought and refused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Oct 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Feb 2018 16:28:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=508327" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1977 (10) TMI 119 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198814</link>
      <description>Where a widow inherited a Hindu male&#039;s estate and died after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force, succession was governed by Section 8 and the Act&#039;s scheme displaced earlier Hindu reversionary rules. The statutory heir succeeding on the widow&#039;s death took as full owner, became a fresh stock of descent, and subsequent devolution had to be traced under Section 15, not by reversion. The pleading also made clear that later heirs in the same class are excluded once an earlier item heir is available. A proposed second-appeal amendment introducing a new and inconsistent title was treated as an afterthought and refused.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Oct 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198814</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>