https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292659 The High Court affirmed that the late Rajah had the authority to alienate the impartible estate through a will. The court rejected the appellant's claims challenging the legitimacy of the second respondent as the son of the Rajah, the existence of a contractual restriction on the Rajah's will-making power, and the alleged custom of inalienability in the Madras Presidency. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was directed to bear the costs of the second respondent. en-us Fri, 24 Feb 1899 00:00:00 +0521 Mon, 04 Jan 2021 10:26:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292659 The High Court affirmed that the late Rajah had the authority to alienate the impartible estate through a will. The court rejected the appellant's claims challenging the legitimacy of the second respondent as the son of the Rajah, the existence of a contractual restriction on the Rajah's will-making power, and the alleged custom of inalienability in the Madras Presidency. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was directed to bear the costs of the second respondent. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 24 Feb 1899 00:00:00 +0521 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292659