<?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>1911 (9) TMI 1 - Madras High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292072</link>
    <description>Property gifted to a woman and her children under Marumakkattayam law was treated as tarwad property, carrying joint incidents of ownership and survivorship, so children born after the gift also acquired an interest by birth. A sixty-year kanom demise granted by the senior female manager was beyond ordinary managerial power without special necessity or benefit, and it could not be partially sustained by rewriting the contract. A junior member in occupation under the invalid demise could not invoke general co-ownership principles to resist recovery or demolition of a building on tarwad land, since the karnavan&#039;s right of management and possession prevails. No compensation for improvements was payable because the occupier was not shown to have acted in bona fide ignorance of title.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 1911 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Dec 2020 12:58:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=629434" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1911 (9) TMI 1 - Madras High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292072</link>
      <description>Property gifted to a woman and her children under Marumakkattayam law was treated as tarwad property, carrying joint incidents of ownership and survivorship, so children born after the gift also acquired an interest by birth. A sixty-year kanom demise granted by the senior female manager was beyond ordinary managerial power without special necessity or benefit, and it could not be partially sustained by rewriting the contract. A junior member in occupation under the invalid demise could not invoke general co-ownership principles to resist recovery or demolition of a building on tarwad land, since the karnavan&#039;s right of management and possession prevails. No compensation for improvements was payable because the occupier was not shown to have acted in bona fide ignorance of title.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 1911 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292072</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>