<?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 (8) TMI 365 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272707</link>
    <description>A transferee from a co-owner of undivided property acquires only the transferor&#039;s share in joint possession, common enjoyment and partition, and cannot claim exclusive possession of a specific portion unless partition or a lawful arrangement exists. In a possession suit based on title, the plaintiff must prove the strength of title and identify the suit property with certainty. Where the sale deed is not produced and the maps and descriptions do not match the plaint schedule, the claim fails because the property claimed is not established with precision. On these principles, the decree for possession could not be sustained, and refund of the consideration paid to the vendor was directed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 May 2018 15:20:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=520159" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (8) TMI 365 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272707</link>
      <description>A transferee from a co-owner of undivided property acquires only the transferor&#039;s share in joint possession, common enjoyment and partition, and cannot claim exclusive possession of a specific portion unless partition or a lawful arrangement exists. In a possession suit based on title, the plaintiff must prove the strength of title and identify the suit property with certainty. Where the sale deed is not produced and the maps and descriptions do not match the plaint schedule, the claim fails because the property claimed is not established with precision. On these principles, the decree for possession could not be sustained, and refund of the consideration paid to the vendor was directed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272707</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>