<?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>2003 (12) TMI 53 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40361</link>
    <description>A settlement deed was upheld where the attesting witness&#039;s evidence showed that the document was read, signed and attested with the respondent&#039;s knowledge; the adverse finding below was unsustainable because it rested on a misreading of material evidence and there was no reliable proof of fraud. Hindu law also recognises a father&#039;s moral duty to provide for married daughters, and a gift of ancestral immovable property is valid if made within reasonable limits. On the facts, the gifted extent was only a small part of the family holding and there was no pleading or proof that the transfer was excessive, so the daughters&#039; settlement was valid and title and possession were protected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Jun 2014 20:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=78902" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (12) TMI 53 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40361</link>
      <description>A settlement deed was upheld where the attesting witness&#039;s evidence showed that the document was read, signed and attested with the respondent&#039;s knowledge; the adverse finding below was unsustainable because it rested on a misreading of material evidence and there was no reliable proof of fraud. Hindu law also recognises a father&#039;s moral duty to provide for married daughters, and a gift of ancestral immovable property is valid if made within reasonable limits. On the facts, the gifted extent was only a small part of the family holding and there was no pleading or proof that the transfer was excessive, so the daughters&#039; settlement was valid and title and possession were protected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40361</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>