AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Report No. 86

2.5. Opinion on the Bill.-

The Bill was circulated to local Governments, High Courts etc. for opinion, with a circular dated the 31st October, 1889. Many of the opinions so received objected to the provisions1 under which a sale could be ordered irrespective of the quantum of interest of the share-holder applying for sale. For example, Mr. Justice Muttusami Aiyar of the Madras High Court suggested that, in the case of ancestral land forming the sole or principal means of subsistence of a Joint Hindu family, no sale should be directed except by the consent of all or the majority, of the co-shares. The experience of Sir R. West (quoted by the Bombay Government) was that the (English) Partition Act was unsuitable for India. The Government of Bombay thought that the Bill would break up half the old estates, at least in the course of a generation.

1. See para. 2.4, supra.



The Partition Act, 1893 Back




Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys