<?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>1999 (4) TMI 604 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171707</link>
    <description>A lease deed must be construed as a whole to determine whether the dominant subject-matter is a building with appurtenant land or a separate demise of land. On the terms recorded, the presence of a residential tiled building, the description of the land as adjoining it, restrictions on improvements, alienation and sub-lease, and only limited rights over standing trees showed that the land was merely ancillary to the building. The extent of land by itself was not decisive, and no independent lease of land was disclosed. The lease therefore fell within the exemption for a building with land appurtenant thereto under Section 3(1)(ii) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, leaving no claim to rights under Section 72B.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2015 16:41:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=391684" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (4) TMI 604 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171707</link>
      <description>A lease deed must be construed as a whole to determine whether the dominant subject-matter is a building with appurtenant land or a separate demise of land. On the terms recorded, the presence of a residential tiled building, the description of the land as adjoining it, restrictions on improvements, alienation and sub-lease, and only limited rights over standing trees showed that the land was merely ancillary to the building. The extent of land by itself was not decisive, and no independent lease of land was disclosed. The lease therefore fell within the exemption for a building with land appurtenant thereto under Section 3(1)(ii) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, leaving no claim to rights under Section 72B.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171707</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>