<?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>2010 (10) TMI 1164 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197014</link>
    <description>A Small Cause Court in a summary ejectment and arrears-of-rent proceeding cannot finally determine disputed questions of title, fraud, or the validity of transfers of immovable property; where the plaintiff&#039;s relief depends on proof or disproof of title beyond the court&#039;s limited jurisdiction, the plaint may be returned for determination by a competent civil court. The court may consider title only incidentally, not undertake a full inquiry into alleged forged or invalid sale deeds, gifts, or wills. Remaining objections on notice, jurisdiction, maintainability, and unsubstantiated allegations did not justify interference, especially where the matter had already been addressed in earlier proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Dec 2017 12:14:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=500774" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (10) TMI 1164 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197014</link>
      <description>A Small Cause Court in a summary ejectment and arrears-of-rent proceeding cannot finally determine disputed questions of title, fraud, or the validity of transfers of immovable property; where the plaintiff&#039;s relief depends on proof or disproof of title beyond the court&#039;s limited jurisdiction, the plaint may be returned for determination by a competent civil court. The court may consider title only incidentally, not undertake a full inquiry into alleged forged or invalid sale deeds, gifts, or wills. Remaining objections on notice, jurisdiction, maintainability, and unsubstantiated allegations did not justify interference, especially where the matter had already been addressed in earlier proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197014</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>