<?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>1947 (2) TMI 22 - OUDH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199330</link>
    <description>A will was upheld as duly executed and attested because the surrounding family circumstances, the testator&#039;s prior dispositions, the beneficiary&#039;s role in the household, and the attesting witnesses&#039; evidence together showed a natural disposition free from reliable proof of undue influence or collusion. An arbitration award made in mutation proceedings was treated as beyond the mutation court&#039;s limited jurisdiction to the extent it decided title, because mutation proceedings cannot confer finality on proprietary rights. The award also required registration insofar as it created or declared rights in immovable property, and only the mutation aspect embodied in the court&#039;s order could benefit from any exemption. The respondent&#039;s title under the will was therefore unaffected by the award beyond the mutation dispute.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Feb 1947 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Apr 2019 11:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=510559" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1947 (2) TMI 22 - OUDH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199330</link>
      <description>A will was upheld as duly executed and attested because the surrounding family circumstances, the testator&#039;s prior dispositions, the beneficiary&#039;s role in the household, and the attesting witnesses&#039; evidence together showed a natural disposition free from reliable proof of undue influence or collusion. An arbitration award made in mutation proceedings was treated as beyond the mutation court&#039;s limited jurisdiction to the extent it decided title, because mutation proceedings cannot confer finality on proprietary rights. The award also required registration insofar as it created or declared rights in immovable property, and only the mutation aspect embodied in the court&#039;s order could benefit from any exemption. The respondent&#039;s title under the will was therefore unaffected by the award beyond the mutation dispute.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Feb 1947 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199330</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>