<?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>2000 (12) TMI 927 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304201</link>
    <description>A Christian Will may be proved by other admissible evidence when attesting witnesses are unavailable and the original document is not produced, provided execution, registration and testamentary capacity are otherwise established. Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 was treated as procedural, so the amended position removing the bar for Indian Christians applied to proceedings where rights under the Will were sought to be established after the amendment. Registration issues did not invalidate the Will, but a testator cannot validly bequeath property that he had not yet acquired title to, so the bequest was upheld only for the items supported by his ownership.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Sep 2022 12:08:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=690577" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (12) TMI 927 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304201</link>
      <description>A Christian Will may be proved by other admissible evidence when attesting witnesses are unavailable and the original document is not produced, provided execution, registration and testamentary capacity are otherwise established. Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 was treated as procedural, so the amended position removing the bar for Indian Christians applied to proceedings where rights under the Will were sought to be established after the amendment. Registration issues did not invalidate the Will, but a testator cannot validly bequeath property that he had not yet acquired title to, so the bequest was upheld only for the items supported by his ownership.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304201</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>