<?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>2001 (3) TMI 1088 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311073</link>
    <description>A bequest under a Will does not amount to a transfer of property because a Will operates only on the testator&#039;s death and creates no present right or interest during lifetime. A general status quo order over property restrains changes to existing conditions, but it does not, by itself, prohibit testamentary disposition unless it expressly forbids making a Will. Accordingly, a Will executed while such an order is in force is not void or non est merely on that ground. The note also states that the appellant was a necessary party entitled to continue the contest, and the order rejecting impleadment was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2023 16:23:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=734127" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (3) TMI 1088 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311073</link>
      <description>A bequest under a Will does not amount to a transfer of property because a Will operates only on the testator&#039;s death and creates no present right or interest during lifetime. A general status quo order over property restrains changes to existing conditions, but it does not, by itself, prohibit testamentary disposition unless it expressly forbids making a Will. Accordingly, a Will executed while such an order is in force is not void or non est merely on that ground. The note also states that the appellant was a necessary party entitled to continue the contest, and the order rejecting impleadment was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311073</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>