<?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>1966 (10) TMI 150 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176183</link>
    <description>Bank book entries, including certified copies under the bankers&#039; books rule, are only prima facie evidence and cannot by themselves fasten liability where the alleged advance is disputed; independent proof of actual payment is required, and the unproved further advance could not be charged to the borrowers. On limitation, enforcement against mortgaged security may remain in time within the mortgage limitation period, but personal liability depends on the shorter limitation for the personal covenant. A mere account entry of part payment did not extend limitation absent the proof required by the Limitation Act, so the personal claim was time-barred while the suit for sale of the mortgaged property remained within time.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Oct 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2026 16:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=409244" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1966 (10) TMI 150 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176183</link>
      <description>Bank book entries, including certified copies under the bankers&#039; books rule, are only prima facie evidence and cannot by themselves fasten liability where the alleged advance is disputed; independent proof of actual payment is required, and the unproved further advance could not be charged to the borrowers. On limitation, enforcement against mortgaged security may remain in time within the mortgage limitation period, but personal liability depends on the shorter limitation for the personal covenant. A mere account entry of part payment did not extend limitation absent the proof required by the Limitation Act, so the personal claim was time-barred while the suit for sale of the mortgaged property remained within time.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Oct 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176183</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>