<?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>1961 (10) TMI 95 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272561</link>
    <description>In execution proceedings, a judgment-debtor was barred by constructive res judicata from objecting to sale of kasht lands on the ground that they had become non-saleable under the amended Bihar Tenancy Act. The court held that constructive res judicata applies generally in execution and covers objections that might and ought to have been raised at the proper stage; notice, attachment, sale and confirmation were judicial acts inconsistent with a later claim that the property was not saleable. Because the debtor had notice and failed to object before sale, the challenge could not be entertained even though the sale was alleged to be void under statute. The sale therefore could not be set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Oct 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 May 2018 12:42:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=519587" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1961 (10) TMI 95 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272561</link>
      <description>In execution proceedings, a judgment-debtor was barred by constructive res judicata from objecting to sale of kasht lands on the ground that they had become non-saleable under the amended Bihar Tenancy Act. The court held that constructive res judicata applies generally in execution and covers objections that might and ought to have been raised at the proper stage; notice, attachment, sale and confirmation were judicial acts inconsistent with a later claim that the property was not saleable. Because the debtor had notice and failed to object before sale, the challenge could not be entertained even though the sale was alleged to be void under statute. The sale therefore could not be set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Oct 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272561</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>