<?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>1989 (2) TMI 413 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272705</link>
    <description>Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act is available only when the transferee specifically pleads a written contract, possession taken or continued in part performance, and readiness and willingness to perform the contract. A mere agreement to sell does not create an interest in immovable property, and bare assertions of possession are insufficient unless they are clearly linked to the contract relied on. Because the defendants did not plead possession referable to the alleged agreements, nor an independent assignment or contractual basis in favour of the second defendant, the statutory defence could not be made out and remand for evidence was unnecessary.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Feb 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 May 2018 15:08:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=520157" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (2) TMI 413 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272705</link>
      <description>Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act is available only when the transferee specifically pleads a written contract, possession taken or continued in part performance, and readiness and willingness to perform the contract. A mere agreement to sell does not create an interest in immovable property, and bare assertions of possession are insufficient unless they are clearly linked to the contract relied on. Because the defendants did not plead possession referable to the alleged agreements, nor an independent assignment or contractual basis in favour of the second defendant, the statutory defence could not be made out and remand for evidence was unnecessary.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Feb 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272705</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>