<?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>1956 (4) TMI 57 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173330</link>
    <description>A plea of lis pendens under section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act may be considered even without a specific pleading where the parties went to trial on that issue with full knowledge and no prejudice. The maintenance suit and the execution sale enforcing it were found not collusive, because the materials showed a bona fide contested claim and execution steps taken to satisfy the decree. The execution sale was also held not void for non-joinder of the Official Receiver, as that defect could be raised only by the Receiver and not by a transferee pendente lite. The respondent&#039;s title and possession were therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Sep 2015 13:41:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=396960" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1956 (4) TMI 57 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173330</link>
      <description>A plea of lis pendens under section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act may be considered even without a specific pleading where the parties went to trial on that issue with full knowledge and no prejudice. The maintenance suit and the execution sale enforcing it were found not collusive, because the materials showed a bona fide contested claim and execution steps taken to satisfy the decree. The execution sale was also held not void for non-joinder of the Official Receiver, as that defect could be raised only by the Receiver and not by a transferee pendente lite. The respondent&#039;s title and possession were therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173330</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>