<?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 (8) TMI 229 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287601</link>
    <description>Ceiling area under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 is determined by the family&#039;s strength on the appointed day, subject only to specified statutory exceptions; later births do not enlarge the ceiling entitlement. An alleged partial partition of a joint Hindu family requires reliable proof of severance and allocation of property; mutation entries, sales, receipts, affidavits and a consent deed were insufficient where no partition deed existed, allocation was unequal and other properties were undistributed. Land standing in a member&#039;s name counts as separate property only when separate holding is proved; otherwise it remains part of the family holding and attracts the corresponding family allowance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Aug 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2020 15:43:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=610889" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1971 (8) TMI 229 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287601</link>
      <description>Ceiling area under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 is determined by the family&#039;s strength on the appointed day, subject only to specified statutory exceptions; later births do not enlarge the ceiling entitlement. An alleged partial partition of a joint Hindu family requires reliable proof of severance and allocation of property; mutation entries, sales, receipts, affidavits and a consent deed were insufficient where no partition deed existed, allocation was unequal and other properties were undistributed. Land standing in a member&#039;s name counts as separate property only when separate holding is proved; otherwise it remains part of the family holding and attracts the corresponding family allowance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Aug 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287601</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>