<?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>1965 (5) TMI 46 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272890</link>
    <description>A prior declaration of evacuee status after due notice made a fresh Section 7 notice unnecessary for the same property; the notices were otherwise substantially valid, though assets not adequately identified could not vest in the Custodian. The Court also held that no legally sanctioned custom displaced Mohammedan law in the Hyderabad context, so the deceased lacked competence to dispose of the property by will and the estate devolved on intestate succession. Findings that identified properties were benami or belonged to the deceased were upheld, but the separately described firm assets outside the notification could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 May 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 May 2018 11:25:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=521362" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (5) TMI 46 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272890</link>
      <description>A prior declaration of evacuee status after due notice made a fresh Section 7 notice unnecessary for the same property; the notices were otherwise substantially valid, though assets not adequately identified could not vest in the Custodian. The Court also held that no legally sanctioned custom displaced Mohammedan law in the Hyderabad context, so the deceased lacked competence to dispose of the property by will and the estate devolved on intestate succession. Findings that identified properties were benami or belonged to the deceased were upheld, but the separately described firm assets outside the notification could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 May 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272890</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>