https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292301 Legislative competence over partition in an Aliyasanthana family was upheld by construing the provincial and concurrent list entries broadly to include transfer, devolution and succession, so Chapter 6 of the Madras Aliyasanthana Act, 1949 was not ultra vires on that ground. The extra-territoriality objection also failed because the provisions operated on property situated within the Province, and incidental effects on parties outside the Province did not invalidate the law. Sections 35 and 36 were further held consistent with Articles 14 and 31: the Act only altered incidents of joint family ownership and management, without effecting a compensable taking of property, and its classifications were based on intelligible and rational distinctions. en-us Thu, 21 Jul 1955 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Dec 2020 13:49:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292301 Legislative competence over partition in an Aliyasanthana family was upheld by construing the provincial and concurrent list entries broadly to include transfer, devolution and succession, so Chapter 6 of the Madras Aliyasanthana Act, 1949 was not ultra vires on that ground. The extra-territoriality objection also failed because the provisions operated on property situated within the Province, and incidental effects on parties outside the Province did not invalidate the law. Sections 35 and 36 were further held consistent with Articles 14 and 31: the Act only altered incidents of joint family ownership and management, without effecting a compensable taking of property, and its classifications were based on intelligible and rational distinctions. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 21 Jul 1955 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292301