<?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>1974 (8) TMI 110 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169915</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court dismissed the defendants&#039; appeal in a suit for recovery of possession and title declaration to land. The Court upheld the trial court&#039;s decision, rejecting pleas of waiver and estoppel raised by the defendants. Defendant No. 1&#039;s failure to prove authority for land use or subletting, along with insufficient evidence of plaintiff&#039;s alleged encouragement, led to the dismissal of claims. The Court emphasized established legal principles on estoppel and clarified the inapplicability of Order 2, Rule 2, C.P.C. The defendants&#039; actions were deemed lacking bonafides, resulting in each party bearing their own costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Aug 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 May 2015 15:57:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=384625" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1974 (8) TMI 110 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169915</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court dismissed the defendants&#039; appeal in a suit for recovery of possession and title declaration to land. The Court upheld the trial court&#039;s decision, rejecting pleas of waiver and estoppel raised by the defendants. Defendant No. 1&#039;s failure to prove authority for land use or subletting, along with insufficient evidence of plaintiff&#039;s alleged encouragement, led to the dismissal of claims. The Court emphasized established legal principles on estoppel and clarified the inapplicability of Order 2, Rule 2, C.P.C. The defendants&#039; actions were deemed lacking bonafides, resulting in each party bearing their own costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Aug 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169915</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>