<?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>2009 (3) TMI 596 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203142</link>
    <description>Under Mohammedan law, a gift of immovable property may be complete through constructive delivery of possession where physical handover is impracticable, such as when tenants occupy the property, provided the donor has otherwise divested dominion and done what is necessary to place the donee in control. The registered deed&#039;s express divestment, collection of rent in the donee&#039;s name, and mutation efforts supported completion of the gift. A suit to cancel the instrument was also governed by Article 59 of the Limitation Act and had to be filed within three years of knowledge of the facts entitling cancellation. As the plaintiff knew of the deed in earlier proceedings but sued later, the challenge was time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 May 2011 00:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=176709" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (3) TMI 596 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203142</link>
      <description>Under Mohammedan law, a gift of immovable property may be complete through constructive delivery of possession where physical handover is impracticable, such as when tenants occupy the property, provided the donor has otherwise divested dominion and done what is necessary to place the donee in control. The registered deed&#039;s express divestment, collection of rent in the donee&#039;s name, and mutation efforts supported completion of the gift. A suit to cancel the instrument was also governed by Article 59 of the Limitation Act and had to be filed within three years of knowledge of the facts entitling cancellation. As the plaintiff knew of the deed in earlier proceedings but sued later, the challenge was time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203142</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>