<?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>1955 (9) TMI 84 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292041</link>
    <description>The Madras Shariat (Amendment) Act, 1949 was treated as confined to the matters expressly covered by the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 and the amendment itself. It made Muslim personal law the rule of decision only for those specified subjects, without abolishing all custom and usage or enlarging proprietary rights. Property interests governed by Marumakkathayam tarwad law were not converted into inheritable shares for intestate succession, and section 16 of the Madras Civil Courts Act, 1873 operated only to the extent of inconsistency. The contrary view that customary Marumakkathayam law had been wholly abrogated was rejected, and the constitutional challenge under Article 19(1)(f) failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Sep 1955 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2020 18:20:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=629382" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1955 (9) TMI 84 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292041</link>
      <description>The Madras Shariat (Amendment) Act, 1949 was treated as confined to the matters expressly covered by the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 and the amendment itself. It made Muslim personal law the rule of decision only for those specified subjects, without abolishing all custom and usage or enlarging proprietary rights. Property interests governed by Marumakkathayam tarwad law were not converted into inheritable shares for intestate succession, and section 16 of the Madras Civil Courts Act, 1873 operated only to the extent of inconsistency. The contrary view that customary Marumakkathayam law had been wholly abrogated was rejected, and the constitutional challenge under Article 19(1)(f) failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Sep 1955 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292041</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>