https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197902 The court concluded that the defendant was not entitled to suspension of rents and royalties as the minerals excluded in the 1900 lease were not included in the 1919 lease. The court also held that the acknowledgments by the previous Receiver saved the limitation period for the plaintiff's claim before August 12, 1935. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower courts' decisions and ordering costs against the appellant. en-us Thu, 21 Apr 1960 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Jan 2018 18:00:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197902 The court concluded that the defendant was not entitled to suspension of rents and royalties as the minerals excluded in the 1900 lease were not included in the 1919 lease. The court also held that the acknowledgments by the previous Receiver saved the limitation period for the plaintiff's claim before August 12, 1935. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower courts' decisions and ordering costs against the appellant. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 21 Apr 1960 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197902