<?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>1968 (7) TMI 84 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191062</link>
    <description>The statutory right of reconveyance accrues only after a completed transfer, and registration is complete only on compliance with the Registration Act formalities; however, a co-sharer&#039;s application was not invalid where the Collector dealt with it only after registration was completed. The requirement to annex a copy of the registered deed under the Bihar Ceiling Rules was held directory, because its purpose was merely to supply information to the Collector. A certified copy of the sale deed presented for registration was treated as substantial compliance. The omission to file the registered deed was therefore not fatal, and the reconveyance claim was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jul 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Mar 2017 17:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=461571" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (7) TMI 84 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191062</link>
      <description>The statutory right of reconveyance accrues only after a completed transfer, and registration is complete only on compliance with the Registration Act formalities; however, a co-sharer&#039;s application was not invalid where the Collector dealt with it only after registration was completed. The requirement to annex a copy of the registered deed under the Bihar Ceiling Rules was held directory, because its purpose was merely to supply information to the Collector. A certified copy of the sale deed presented for registration was treated as substantial compliance. The omission to file the registered deed was therefore not fatal, and the reconveyance claim was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jul 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191062</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>