<?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>2019 (8) TMI 1829 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303317</link>
    <description>A pre-cut-off partition deed under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 may be disregarded in ceiling proceedings only if the materials show it to be sham, collusive, or not an actual divestiture of title or possession; a genuine partition cannot be ignored merely because the family allotments are later disputed. The text also notes that the State&#039;s challenge to recorded rights may fail where affected family members are not impleaded. The Bench recorded differing views on whether the daughters&#039; allotments were bona fide or unreal, and no majority decision emerged on the merits, so the matter was referred to a Larger Bench.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2022 20:41:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=684951" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (8) TMI 1829 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303317</link>
      <description>A pre-cut-off partition deed under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 may be disregarded in ceiling proceedings only if the materials show it to be sham, collusive, or not an actual divestiture of title or possession; a genuine partition cannot be ignored merely because the family allotments are later disputed. The text also notes that the State&#039;s challenge to recorded rights may fail where affected family members are not impleaded. The Bench recorded differing views on whether the daughters&#039; allotments were bona fide or unreal, and no majority decision emerged on the merits, so the matter was referred to a Larger Bench.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303317</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>