<?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>1981 (8) TMI 249 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275603</link>
    <description>Section 4(1)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 displaced the customary rule of lineal primogeniture, and Section 5(ii) did not preserve it because the Bengal Regulation only maintained the custom of single-heir descent rather than creating a statutory rule. The defendant&#039;s possession under an unregistered maintenance deed could still be examined for the limited collateral purpose of identifying the nature of possession, but not to found title. As the defendant was a joint family member placed in possession under a maintenance arrangement, that possession could not be treated as trespass. The decree for possession and mesne profits was therefore unsustainable, and the Trial Court decree as affirmed in appeal was restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Oct 2018 16:40:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=537638" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (8) TMI 249 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275603</link>
      <description>Section 4(1)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 displaced the customary rule of lineal primogeniture, and Section 5(ii) did not preserve it because the Bengal Regulation only maintained the custom of single-heir descent rather than creating a statutory rule. The defendant&#039;s possession under an unregistered maintenance deed could still be examined for the limited collateral purpose of identifying the nature of possession, but not to found title. As the defendant was a joint family member placed in possession under a maintenance arrangement, that possession could not be treated as trespass. The decree for possession and mesne profits was therefore unsustainable, and the Trial Court decree as affirmed in appeal was restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275603</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>