<?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>1997 (4) TMI 527 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199431</link>
    <description>Final ryotwari patta granted under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, once confirmed in appeal and attained finality, was treated as conclusive under the statutory land-reform scheme. Because the Act provided a complete mechanism for determining title, including a special forum and appellate hierarchy, the ordinary civil court jurisdiction under Section 9 CPC stood excluded by necessary implication. The suit was also defective because the institution in whose favour the patta stood was not impleaded. On that basis, the civil suit was held barred and not maintainable, and the dismissal was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Feb 2018 15:03:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=510906" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (4) TMI 527 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199431</link>
      <description>Final ryotwari patta granted under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, once confirmed in appeal and attained finality, was treated as conclusive under the statutory land-reform scheme. Because the Act provided a complete mechanism for determining title, including a special forum and appellate hierarchy, the ordinary civil court jurisdiction under Section 9 CPC stood excluded by necessary implication. The suit was also defective because the institution in whose favour the patta stood was not impleaded. On that basis, the civil suit was held barred and not maintainable, and the dismissal was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199431</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>