https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199918 Under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, interference in revision is limited to exceptional cases such as a clear misapprehension of law, and no such ground was made out here. The court also held that, for Section 9, the decisive question is whether possession was taken without the plaintiff's consent in fact, not whether the underlying transfer was valid. In the case of a company, consent given by those controlling its directing mind and will is attributable to the company. As the directors and general manager had authorised and controlled the transfer arrangements, the possession could not be treated as taken without the company's consent, and the suit was not maintainable. en-us Tue, 13 Oct 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Mar 2018 10:48:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199918 Under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, interference in revision is limited to exceptional cases such as a clear misapprehension of law, and no such ground was made out here. The court also held that, for Section 9, the decisive question is whether possession was taken without the plaintiff's consent in fact, not whether the underlying transfer was valid. In the case of a company, consent given by those controlling its directing mind and will is attributable to the company. As the directors and general manager had authorised and controlled the transfer arrangements, the possession could not be treated as taken without the company's consent, and the suit was not maintainable. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 13 Oct 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199918