<?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>1930 (3) TMI 18 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303572</link>
    <description>After a partial partition in a joint Hindu family, the continued joint or separate character of the remaining property depends on the whole evidence, and survivorship cannot be inferred merely from joint descriptions in records. The court considered the Record of Rights, the widow&#039;s later entry, Krishnarao&#039;s separate savings and money-lending business, and the surrounding conduct, and found the circumstances pointed away from survivorship and towards separation in interest. Narayan and Krishnarao were therefore not joint tenants in the suit property, survivorship did not apply, and the lower appellate court&#039;s decree was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Mar 1930 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Jul 2022 15:10:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=686557" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1930 (3) TMI 18 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303572</link>
      <description>After a partial partition in a joint Hindu family, the continued joint or separate character of the remaining property depends on the whole evidence, and survivorship cannot be inferred merely from joint descriptions in records. The court considered the Record of Rights, the widow&#039;s later entry, Krishnarao&#039;s separate savings and money-lending business, and the surrounding conduct, and found the circumstances pointed away from survivorship and towards separation in interest. Narayan and Krishnarao were therefore not joint tenants in the suit property, survivorship did not apply, and the lower appellate court&#039;s decree was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Mar 1930 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303572</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>