<?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>1990 (10) TMI 378 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199521</link>
    <description>Execution of a sale deed requires assent to the contents of the instrument, not merely a signature or thumb-impression. On the facts, the thumb-impression could not amount to proof of execution because recitals about the oil engine and coconut trees were found to have been inserted after the thumb-impression was affixed, and the document showed signs of alteration. In these circumstances, the registering authority was justified in refusing registration when the executant did not admit the document in the form presented, and the concurrent factual findings required no interference. The appellant therefore failed to establish due execution and a right to compel registration under the Registration Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Oct 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2018 17:55:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=511238" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (10) TMI 378 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199521</link>
      <description>Execution of a sale deed requires assent to the contents of the instrument, not merely a signature or thumb-impression. On the facts, the thumb-impression could not amount to proof of execution because recitals about the oil engine and coconut trees were found to have been inserted after the thumb-impression was affixed, and the document showed signs of alteration. In these circumstances, the registering authority was justified in refusing registration when the executant did not admit the document in the form presented, and the concurrent factual findings required no interference. The appellant therefore failed to establish due execution and a right to compel registration under the Registration Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Oct 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199521</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>