https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272706 The plaintiff failed to prove that the agreement and endorsements were genuine or executed by the first defendant, as suspicious circumstances and unreliable attesting evidence undermined execution. The suit for specific performance and alternative refund was held barred by limitation because no valid date for performance or proved refusal was shown, and the alleged acknowledgments under the Limitation Act were not established. Relief under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act was also unavailable because the plaintiff did not prove possession in a legally recognizable form over the undivided share. The dismissal of the suit was therefore upheld. en-us Fri, 10 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 May 2018 15:15:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272706 The plaintiff failed to prove that the agreement and endorsements were genuine or executed by the first defendant, as suspicious circumstances and unreliable attesting evidence undermined execution. The suit for specific performance and alternative refund was held barred by limitation because no valid date for performance or proved refusal was shown, and the alleged acknowledgments under the Limitation Act were not established. Relief under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act was also unavailable because the plaintiff did not prove possession in a legally recognizable form over the undivided share. The dismissal of the suit was therefore upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 10 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272706