<?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>1965 (12) TMI 143 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192189</link>
    <description>Restitution under Section 144 CPC is available when a decree under which property was sold in execution is varied or reversed, and the right is assessed with reference to the position existing when restitution is sought. A later decree in favour of the decree-holder does not validate an earlier execution sale conducted under the reversed decree. The distinction between a decree-holder purchaser and a bona fide stranger purchaser is material; where the decree-holder purchased the property in execution of the erroneous decree, the sale could not stand after that decree was set aside. Restitution was therefore allowed, with restoration of possession subject to deposit of the decretal amount.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Dec 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 May 2017 18:16:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=469051" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (12) TMI 143 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192189</link>
      <description>Restitution under Section 144 CPC is available when a decree under which property was sold in execution is varied or reversed, and the right is assessed with reference to the position existing when restitution is sought. A later decree in favour of the decree-holder does not validate an earlier execution sale conducted under the reversed decree. The distinction between a decree-holder purchaser and a bona fide stranger purchaser is material; where the decree-holder purchased the property in execution of the erroneous decree, the sale could not stand after that decree was set aside. Restitution was therefore allowed, with restoration of possession subject to deposit of the decretal amount.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Dec 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192189</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>