https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194374 A false private sale of pledged jewels was not proved: the alleged purchasers were unidentified, no payment was shown, contemporaneous records were lacking, and later ledger entries were rejected as fabricated. Applying the presumption against pledgees who failed to produce the jewels, the Court treated the jewels as still existing and fixed their value at Rs. 11,000. Acquiescence was not established because the pledgor was not shown to have known the sale was sham, and Section 47 CPC did not bar the claim because the dispute could not have been effectively decided in execution. Prior tender was unnecessary once the pledgees asserted a sale and disabled redelivery, and the suit was held within limitation. en-us Mon, 22 Apr 1929 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Jan 2018 09:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194374 A false private sale of pledged jewels was not proved: the alleged purchasers were unidentified, no payment was shown, contemporaneous records were lacking, and later ledger entries were rejected as fabricated. Applying the presumption against pledgees who failed to produce the jewels, the Court treated the jewels as still existing and fixed their value at Rs. 11,000. Acquiescence was not established because the pledgor was not shown to have known the sale was sham, and Section 47 CPC did not bar the claim because the dispute could not have been effectively decided in execution. Prior tender was unnecessary once the pledgees asserted a sale and disabled redelivery, and the suit was held within limitation. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 22 Apr 1929 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194374