<?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>1984 (4) TMI 316 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275600</link>
    <description>Ancestral impartible inam lands governed by lineal primogeniture were held to retain their joint Hindu family character when bhumiswami rights were conferred under section 158(1)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The statutory change extinguished the special inam tenure and ordinary tenure rights arose automatically, but those rights devolved under personal law and did not by themselves create exclusive ownership in the holder. The incidents of impartibility and primogeniture were treated as incidents of tenure, not separate title. The lands therefore remained available to the coparcenary, and partition and separate possession could be claimed absent a contrary intention.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Oct 2018 16:19:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=537634" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (4) TMI 316 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275600</link>
      <description>Ancestral impartible inam lands governed by lineal primogeniture were held to retain their joint Hindu family character when bhumiswami rights were conferred under section 158(1)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The statutory change extinguished the special inam tenure and ordinary tenure rights arose automatically, but those rights devolved under personal law and did not by themselves create exclusive ownership in the holder. The incidents of impartibility and primogeniture were treated as incidents of tenure, not separate title. The lands therefore remained available to the coparcenary, and partition and separate possession could be claimed absent a contrary intention.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275600</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>