<?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>1958 (10) TMI 53 - Kerala High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273277</link>
    <description>A transfer of mortgaged land carries buildings and other attachments to the earth unless a contrary intention is shown, so the buildings and patta-supported survey numbers fell within the mortgage charge. Money paid to prevent an income-tax sale was not recoverable as preservation expenses or by a personal decree because the payment was not necessary to avert loss of the mortgage security and did not attract restitution under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act. Ext. H was confined to the properties expressly released and did not exonerate the second defendant&#039;s share in items 1 and 6 of Schedule A; the connected building also remained liable, subject to directions regulating the order of sale.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Oct 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Jun 2018 15:14:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=523505" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1958 (10) TMI 53 - Kerala High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273277</link>
      <description>A transfer of mortgaged land carries buildings and other attachments to the earth unless a contrary intention is shown, so the buildings and patta-supported survey numbers fell within the mortgage charge. Money paid to prevent an income-tax sale was not recoverable as preservation expenses or by a personal decree because the payment was not necessary to avert loss of the mortgage security and did not attract restitution under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act. Ext. H was confined to the properties expressly released and did not exonerate the second defendant&#039;s share in items 1 and 6 of Schedule A; the connected building also remained liable, subject to directions regulating the order of sale.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Oct 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273277</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>