<?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>1981 (5) TMI 129 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272704</link>
    <description>The court allowed the revision petition, emphasizing that no title or interest had passed to the petitioners until specific performance was obtained. As a sale-deed had been executed in favor of another party, the court concluded that the petitioners could not prevent him from enjoying the property. The court highlighted the legal position that a contract for sale in India does not create an equitable estate until a decree for specific performance is obtained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 May 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Jun 2018 15:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=520154" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (5) TMI 129 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272704</link>
      <description>The court allowed the revision petition, emphasizing that no title or interest had passed to the petitioners until specific performance was obtained. As a sale-deed had been executed in favor of another party, the court concluded that the petitioners could not prevent him from enjoying the property. The court highlighted the legal position that a contract for sale in India does not create an equitable estate until a decree for specific performance is obtained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 May 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272704</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>