<?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>1985 (9) TMI 351 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198355</link>
    <description>A person who lacks title cannot create tenancy rights binding on the true owner or decree-holder, and tenancies created during pendency of a suit are ineffective against rights declared in the decree under the principle against transfers pendente lite. The objectors&#039; pleas of waiver, estoppel, and statutory tenancy were rejected because the material relied on did not amount to recognition of tenancy or abandonment of possession rights, and their possession was traced only to the judgment-debtor. A sale deed executed by the Registrar under the specific performance decree was upheld, and physical possession could be enforced in execution where the decree and governing law permitted it.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Sep 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Jan 2018 18:28:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=506516" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (9) TMI 351 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198355</link>
      <description>A person who lacks title cannot create tenancy rights binding on the true owner or decree-holder, and tenancies created during pendency of a suit are ineffective against rights declared in the decree under the principle against transfers pendente lite. The objectors&#039; pleas of waiver, estoppel, and statutory tenancy were rejected because the material relied on did not amount to recognition of tenancy or abandonment of possession rights, and their possession was traced only to the judgment-debtor. A sale deed executed by the Registrar under the specific performance decree was upheld, and physical possession could be enforced in execution where the decree and governing law permitted it.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Sep 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198355</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>