<?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>2003 (1) TMI 731 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198369</link>
    <description>A transferee pendente lite acquires no enforceable equity to demand allotment of a specific item in partition final decree proceedings. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act renders a transfer during pending litigation subject to the decree ultimately passed, so the purchaser cannot improve his position by later constructing on the property after purchase. The court also declined to compel the original parties to accept another item in exchange where that would expose them to additional litigation risk, including disputes with tenants. The final decree therefore remained undisturbed, and the disputed item was not allotted to the purchaser on equitable grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Jan 2018 09:55:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=506574" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (1) TMI 731 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198369</link>
      <description>A transferee pendente lite acquires no enforceable equity to demand allotment of a specific item in partition final decree proceedings. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act renders a transfer during pending litigation subject to the decree ultimately passed, so the purchaser cannot improve his position by later constructing on the property after purchase. The court also declined to compel the original parties to accept another item in exchange where that would expose them to additional litigation risk, including disputes with tenants. The final decree therefore remained undisturbed, and the disputed item was not allotted to the purchaser on equitable grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198369</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>