<?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>1928 (3) TMI 2 - PRIVY COUNCIL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289101</link>
    <description>The Privy Council held that the wife had full ownership rights over the property transferred through a hiba-bil-ewaz document, allowing her to alienate it. The Council determined that the transfer was for consideration, not a pure gift, and thus subject to different legal principles. Emphasizing the wife&#039;s entitlement under the document, the Council dismissed the appeal and affirmed her right to the property, in contrast to the lower court&#039;s decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 1928 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2020 13:03:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=617415" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1928 (3) TMI 2 - PRIVY COUNCIL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289101</link>
      <description>The Privy Council held that the wife had full ownership rights over the property transferred through a hiba-bil-ewaz document, allowing her to alienate it. The Council determined that the transfer was for consideration, not a pure gift, and thus subject to different legal principles. Emphasizing the wife&#039;s entitlement under the document, the Council dismissed the appeal and affirmed her right to the property, in contrast to the lower court&#039;s decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 1928 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289101</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>