<?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>2008 (5) TMI 756 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456623</link>
    <description>The Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 was treated as a special code governing vesting of inam lands and grant of occupancy rights, but its jurisdictional exclusion was held to require strict construction. The dispute concerned inter se rights of co-sharers in joint family lands, not a contest between inamdar and tenants or assignees within the Act&#039;s express field. A statutory deeming grant of occupancy rights to one member could not, without clear language, defeat the proprietary claims of other co-sharers, because possession by one co-sharer is possession of all and property rights under Article 300A cannot be taken away except by clear authority. The matter was referred to a larger Bench.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Aug 2024 10:11:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=763042" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (5) TMI 756 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456623</link>
      <description>The Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 was treated as a special code governing vesting of inam lands and grant of occupancy rights, but its jurisdictional exclusion was held to require strict construction. The dispute concerned inter se rights of co-sharers in joint family lands, not a contest between inamdar and tenants or assignees within the Act&#039;s express field. A statutory deeming grant of occupancy rights to one member could not, without clear language, defeat the proprietary claims of other co-sharers, because possession by one co-sharer is possession of all and property rights under Article 300A cannot be taken away except by clear authority. The matter was referred to a larger Bench.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456623</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>