https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197893 A September 1928 estate agreement was treated as a binding common-management arrangement because its recitals and covenants, read as a whole, showed an intention to preserve the estate, avoid partition for the stipulated period, and manage it jointly through a common manager. Mutual surrender of separate management rights and connected liabilities supplied valid consideration. Unilateral removal of the manager did not end the underlying contract between proprietors, as the agreement required joint management and provided its own mechanism for disputes. The instrument was also held enforceable by injunction because, in substance, it imposed a negative restraint on separate management even though some covenants were affirmative in form. en-us Fri, 17 Apr 1936 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Jan 2018 16:48:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197893 A September 1928 estate agreement was treated as a binding common-management arrangement because its recitals and covenants, read as a whole, showed an intention to preserve the estate, avoid partition for the stipulated period, and manage it jointly through a common manager. Mutual surrender of separate management rights and connected liabilities supplied valid consideration. Unilateral removal of the manager did not end the underlying contract between proprietors, as the agreement required joint management and provided its own mechanism for disputes. The instrument was also held enforceable by injunction because, in substance, it imposed a negative restraint on separate management even though some covenants were affirmative in form. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 17 Apr 1936 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197893