<?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>1960 (10) TMI 108 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310562</link>
    <description>Under the proved community custom, a deceased woman&#039;s absolute property devolved on her sons in preference to her daughter, and the daughter was therefore not the heir entitled to the deposit. Payment to the daughter&#039;s authorised agent did not bind the estate because receipt by an agent cannot validate discharge against the true heirs when the principal lacks entitlement. The mistaken payment claim was made within three years of discovery and was not time-barred. However, the restitutionary claim still failed because the Malayan Ordinance required revaluation by the statutory date, reducing the amount below the recoverable minimum and leaving nothing payable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Oct 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Oct 2023 17:18:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=730855" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1960 (10) TMI 108 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310562</link>
      <description>Under the proved community custom, a deceased woman&#039;s absolute property devolved on her sons in preference to her daughter, and the daughter was therefore not the heir entitled to the deposit. Payment to the daughter&#039;s authorised agent did not bind the estate because receipt by an agent cannot validate discharge against the true heirs when the principal lacks entitlement. The mistaken payment claim was made within three years of discovery and was not time-barred. However, the restitutionary claim still failed because the Malayan Ordinance required revaluation by the statutory date, reducing the amount below the recoverable minimum and leaving nothing payable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Oct 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310562</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>