<?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>1963 (12) TMI 38 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272406</link>
    <description>The Hindu Marriages Validity Act, 1949 retrospectively validated marriages between Hindus of different castes, sub-castes or sects, treating such marriages as never invalid on that ground. Once the marriage was validated, the child born of that marriage was regarded as legitimate, even though the Act did not expressly declare legitimacy. The legal consequence extended to coparcenary rights in joint family property, because legitimacy followed from the validated marriage unless the statute clearly provided otherwise.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Dec 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 May 2018 12:36:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=518784" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1963 (12) TMI 38 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272406</link>
      <description>The Hindu Marriages Validity Act, 1949 retrospectively validated marriages between Hindus of different castes, sub-castes or sects, treating such marriages as never invalid on that ground. Once the marriage was validated, the child born of that marriage was regarded as legitimate, even though the Act did not expressly declare legitimacy. The legal consequence extended to coparcenary rights in joint family property, because legitimacy followed from the validated marriage unless the statute clearly provided otherwise.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Dec 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272406</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>