<?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>2022 (2) TMI 601 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418350</link>
    <description>The appellate court upheld the decision that the suit properties were self-acquired by Lakshmi Ammal, rejecting the claim that they were purchased benami by Kannapiran. The respondent was granted a share in the partition of the properties, and the second appeal was dismissed with each party bearing their own costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Feb 2022 16:29:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=670240" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (2) TMI 601 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418350</link>
      <description>The appellate court upheld the decision that the suit properties were self-acquired by Lakshmi Ammal, rejecting the claim that they were purchased benami by Kannapiran. The respondent was granted a share in the partition of the properties, and the second appeal was dismissed with each party bearing their own costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Benami Property</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418350</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>