<?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>1922 (1) TMI 5 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276470</link>
    <description>A transfer of land by a husband to his wife in discharge of her claim to future maintenance, to be enjoyed during her lifetime, could be made without writing because Section 9 of the Transfer of Property Act permits transfers without writing unless a statute expressly requires it. The arrangement was not a sale under Section 54 since the consideration was not &quot;price&quot; in the sense of money, and it was not an exchange under Section 118 because there was no mutual transfer of ownership. Its character as a family settlement or maintenance arrangement did not make it invalid for want of writing. The question was answered in the affirmative.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 1922 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Nov 2018 16:04:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=541483" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1922 (1) TMI 5 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276470</link>
      <description>A transfer of land by a husband to his wife in discharge of her claim to future maintenance, to be enjoyed during her lifetime, could be made without writing because Section 9 of the Transfer of Property Act permits transfers without writing unless a statute expressly requires it. The arrangement was not a sale under Section 54 since the consideration was not &quot;price&quot; in the sense of money, and it was not an exchange under Section 118 because there was no mutual transfer of ownership. Its character as a family settlement or maintenance arrangement did not make it invalid for want of writing. The question was answered in the affirmative.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 1922 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276470</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>