<?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 (4) TMI 2116 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309051</link>
    <description>Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act enlarges only an existing limited estate or a pre-existing right into absolute ownership; mere possession without a legally cognisable title does not qualify. The Explanation covers property acquired through recognised modes such as inheritance, devise, partition, maintenance, or gift, while Section 14(2) preserves restricted estates created for the first time by instrument, decree, or award. On the facts, the appellant&#039;s possession was not referable to any such title or pre-existing right, the earlier declaratory proceedings could not confer absolute ownership, and the later will was not duly proved. The respondents&#039; title therefore prevailed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Aug 2023 21:07:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=722027" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (4) TMI 2116 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309051</link>
      <description>Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act enlarges only an existing limited estate or a pre-existing right into absolute ownership; mere possession without a legally cognisable title does not qualify. The Explanation covers property acquired through recognised modes such as inheritance, devise, partition, maintenance, or gift, while Section 14(2) preserves restricted estates created for the first time by instrument, decree, or award. On the facts, the appellant&#039;s possession was not referable to any such title or pre-existing right, the earlier declaratory proceedings could not confer absolute ownership, and the later will was not duly proved. The respondents&#039; title therefore prevailed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309051</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>