https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169295 Evidence showed that plaintiffs 2 and 3 advanced funds for the purchase as part of a beneficial arrangement, not as a mere loan, so they acquired equitable interests despite the conveyance standing in the defendant's name. The first plaintiff failed to prove any contribution and obtained no relief. The absence of registration did not defeat the claim because the suit rested on the real nature of the transaction, not on the unregistered instrument as a conveyance of title. Section 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure did not apply to a Receiver's sale made under court directions, as it is confined to certified court purchases under the prescribed execution procedure. en-us Tue, 16 Jan 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Apr 2015 12:44:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169295 Evidence showed that plaintiffs 2 and 3 advanced funds for the purchase as part of a beneficial arrangement, not as a mere loan, so they acquired equitable interests despite the conveyance standing in the defendant's name. The first plaintiff failed to prove any contribution and obtained no relief. The absence of registration did not defeat the claim because the suit rested on the real nature of the transaction, not on the unregistered instrument as a conveyance of title. Section 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure did not apply to a Receiver's sale made under court directions, as it is confined to certified court purchases under the prescribed execution procedure. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 16 Jan 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169295