<?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>1948 (4) TMI 4 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175399</link>
    <description>An agreement to cut and remove timber did not transfer title to any specific trees where the trees meeting the stipulated girth remained unascertained until selection from time to time; under the Sale of Goods Act, property in unascertained goods does not pass before ascertainment. The earlier claim also failed because actual or constructive notice of the agreement was not proved against the later purchaser. The evidence did not show knowledge of the arrangement, and mere omission to make further enquiries or the claimed possession was insufficient to fasten notice under property law. The later sale therefore prevailed over the prior arrangement.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Apr 1948 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2015 09:29:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=405828" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1948 (4) TMI 4 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175399</link>
      <description>An agreement to cut and remove timber did not transfer title to any specific trees where the trees meeting the stipulated girth remained unascertained until selection from time to time; under the Sale of Goods Act, property in unascertained goods does not pass before ascertainment. The earlier claim also failed because actual or constructive notice of the agreement was not proved against the later purchaser. The evidence did not show knowledge of the arrangement, and mere omission to make further enquiries or the claimed possession was insufficient to fasten notice under property law. The later sale therefore prevailed over the prior arrangement.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Apr 1948 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175399</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>