<?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>1971 (7) TMI 164 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281334</link>
    <description>A valid Muslim gift requires declaration by the donor, acceptance by the donee, and delivery of possession; on the evidence, the alleged oral gift was not proved, and the concurrent findings on that issue were not disturbed in second appeal. An instrument executed by a Muslim is not automatically compulsorily registrable if it is only evidence of a completed gift, but Section 129 of the Transfer of Property Act was read down so that its exemption applies only to religious or charitable gifts. Purely secular gifts by a Muslim remain subject to the ordinary requirements of Section 123, and the deed failed for want of compliance with that rule, leaving the plaintiff entitled to partition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Jul 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Jun 2019 10:04:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=575215" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1971 (7) TMI 164 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281334</link>
      <description>A valid Muslim gift requires declaration by the donor, acceptance by the donee, and delivery of possession; on the evidence, the alleged oral gift was not proved, and the concurrent findings on that issue were not disturbed in second appeal. An instrument executed by a Muslim is not automatically compulsorily registrable if it is only evidence of a completed gift, but Section 129 of the Transfer of Property Act was read down so that its exemption applies only to religious or charitable gifts. Purely secular gifts by a Muslim remain subject to the ordinary requirements of Section 123, and the deed failed for want of compliance with that rule, leaving the plaintiff entitled to partition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Jul 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281334</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>