<?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>2008 (5) TMI 635 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169911</link>
    <description>Registered partition, release and power-of-attorney instruments carry a presumption of due execution and validity, which can be displaced only by clear, specific pleadings and proof of fraud or misrepresentation. General allegations without particulars of the false representations, the persons involved, or the manner of procurement were insufficient, and the evidence showed the parties understood and acted upon the documents. The challenge therefore failed, and the instruments were at most voidable, not void ab initio. Because the partition deed had been acted upon, a suit seeking partition without first seeking cancellation was not maintainable, and Article 59 of the Limitation Act applied. The suit was accordingly time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2015 09:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=384621" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (5) TMI 635 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169911</link>
      <description>Registered partition, release and power-of-attorney instruments carry a presumption of due execution and validity, which can be displaced only by clear, specific pleadings and proof of fraud or misrepresentation. General allegations without particulars of the false representations, the persons involved, or the manner of procurement were insufficient, and the evidence showed the parties understood and acted upon the documents. The challenge therefore failed, and the instruments were at most voidable, not void ab initio. Because the partition deed had been acted upon, a suit seeking partition without first seeking cancellation was not maintainable, and Article 59 of the Limitation Act applied. The suit was accordingly time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169911</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>