<?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>1973 (6) TMI 71 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306570</link>
    <description>The appellate court upheld the trial court&#039;s decision in a family property dispute case. The plaintiffs were granted their one-third share in the family properties, including the sale proceeds of the casuarina trees. The court emphasized the impact of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, on the division of property and accountability of the family head. The appellant was held responsible for accounting for the deceased coparcener&#039;s share, and the plaintiffs were awarded costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2023 17:44:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=704304" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1973 (6) TMI 71 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306570</link>
      <description>The appellate court upheld the trial court&#039;s decision in a family property dispute case. The plaintiffs were granted their one-third share in the family properties, including the sale proceeds of the casuarina trees. The court emphasized the impact of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, on the division of property and accountability of the family head. The appellant was held responsible for accounting for the deceased coparcener&#039;s share, and the plaintiffs were awarded costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306570</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>