<?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>1918 (12) TMI 2 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285895</link>
    <description>The Bombay High Court upheld the Subordinate Judge&#039;s decree, ruling that the term &quot;putrapoutradi&quot; in a grant of jaigir did not extend to collateral or female heirs, in line with the custom in Raj Ramgarh where jaigirs reverted to male descendants in the male line. The High Court disagreed with the Calcutta High Court&#039;s interpretation, reinstating the original judgment in favor of the plaintiff and ordering the respondents to pay appeal costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Dec 1918 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Feb 2020 12:32:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=602129" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1918 (12) TMI 2 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285895</link>
      <description>The Bombay High Court upheld the Subordinate Judge&#039;s decree, ruling that the term &quot;putrapoutradi&quot; in a grant of jaigir did not extend to collateral or female heirs, in line with the custom in Raj Ramgarh where jaigirs reverted to male descendants in the male line. The High Court disagreed with the Calcutta High Court&#039;s interpretation, reinstating the original judgment in favor of the plaintiff and ordering the respondents to pay appeal costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Dec 1918 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285895</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>