<?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>1993 (5) TMI 188 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272709</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that a co-owner lacking exclusive possession cannot transfer valid title to a specific land portion. The judgment emphasized the importance of possession in co-ownership disputes and clarified the appropriate remedies for parties in such scenarios, highlighting the need for actual possession for valid title transfer and the principles governing co-ownership rights in joint property.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 May 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 May 2018 15:27:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=520161" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (5) TMI 188 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272709</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that a co-owner lacking exclusive possession cannot transfer valid title to a specific land portion. The judgment emphasized the importance of possession in co-ownership disputes and clarified the appropriate remedies for parties in such scenarios, highlighting the need for actual possession for valid title transfer and the principles governing co-ownership rights in joint property.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 May 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272709</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>