<?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>1918 (6) TMI 3 - THE PRIVY COUNCIL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464052</link>
    <description>A testamentary gift to a widow for her maintenance and absolute use, coupled with powers of alienation, was treated as an absolute estate rather than a mere life interest, so the later clause did not defeat her title to the moiety. Entries and petitions relating to an alleged gift of immovable property could not by themselves prove a valid transfer, but they were relevant to explain possession. Where the daughter thereafter managed the property openly as owner, received rents, issued pattas and took muchilikas in her own name, her possession was referable to ownership and became adverse. That adverse possession continued despite later changes in co-sharer status, and title matured by limitation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Jun 1918 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Nov 2025 14:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=855453" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1918 (6) TMI 3 - THE PRIVY COUNCIL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464052</link>
      <description>A testamentary gift to a widow for her maintenance and absolute use, coupled with powers of alienation, was treated as an absolute estate rather than a mere life interest, so the later clause did not defeat her title to the moiety. Entries and petitions relating to an alleged gift of immovable property could not by themselves prove a valid transfer, but they were relevant to explain possession. Where the daughter thereafter managed the property openly as owner, received rents, issued pattas and took muchilikas in her own name, her possession was referable to ownership and became adverse. That adverse possession continued despite later changes in co-sharer status, and title matured by limitation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Jun 1918 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464052</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>