<?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>1969 (7) TMI 126 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467950</link>
    <description>A founder who dedicates property to charity without fixing a line of succession may leave trusteeship to devolve through a later bona fide compromise arranged by the heir, and that arrangement can validly create joint hereditary trusteeship. On the facts, the Annadhana trust was treated as founded by Chidambara Reddiar, with trusteeship devolving under a compromise that gave joint management in moieties. The claimant was therefore confined to a half share in the C schedule trusteeship. The claim to the B schedule properties also failed because the chain of succession through the reversionary heirs was not satisfactorily proved, including the necessary adoptive-line connection.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2026 13:02:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=896177" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1969 (7) TMI 126 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467950</link>
      <description>A founder who dedicates property to charity without fixing a line of succession may leave trusteeship to devolve through a later bona fide compromise arranged by the heir, and that arrangement can validly create joint hereditary trusteeship. On the facts, the Annadhana trust was treated as founded by Chidambara Reddiar, with trusteeship devolving under a compromise that gave joint management in moieties. The claimant was therefore confined to a half share in the C schedule trusteeship. The claim to the B schedule properties also failed because the chain of succession through the reversionary heirs was not satisfactorily proved, including the necessary adoptive-line connection.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467950</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>