<?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>2008 (8) TMI 976 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198353</link>
    <description>A declaration based on a Will was treated as premature where probate was still pending, because the claimant&#039;s title remained contingent and no present cause of action for declaratory relief had arisen. A suit seeking declaration over immovable properties situated outside Delhi was held beyond territorial jurisdiction, since the relief necessarily concerned rights in property located elsewhere and could not be worked out solely by personal obedience. A benami objection did not, by itself, bar the plaint where the transaction alleged involved property in the name of a wife. The consequential prayer for permanent injunction also failed, as it depended on the declaratory relief and was additionally affected by the availability of an efficacious probate remedy.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Dec 2019 19:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=506514" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (8) TMI 976 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198353</link>
      <description>A declaration based on a Will was treated as premature where probate was still pending, because the claimant&#039;s title remained contingent and no present cause of action for declaratory relief had arisen. A suit seeking declaration over immovable properties situated outside Delhi was held beyond territorial jurisdiction, since the relief necessarily concerned rights in property located elsewhere and could not be worked out solely by personal obedience. A benami objection did not, by itself, bar the plaint where the transaction alleged involved property in the name of a wife. The consequential prayer for permanent injunction also failed, as it depended on the declaratory relief and was additionally affected by the availability of an efficacious probate remedy.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Benami Property</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198353</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>