https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276122 A rent-free alienation of Saranjam property that confers no benefit on the estate was held not to bind the Saranjamdar's successor unless clearly authorised, and the evidence of resumption and regrant showed that the occupancy rights had been validly resumed before the plaintiff acquired title by adoption. On limitation, the time spent seeking permission to sue could not be excluded under the Code of Civil Procedure, and absence from British India did not suspend limitation where the Sovereign Prince or Ruling Chief acted through representatives in British India. The plaintiff therefore had no enforceable title and the suit was barred by limitation. en-us Mon, 16 Jul 1928 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Oct 2018 16:28:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276122 A rent-free alienation of Saranjam property that confers no benefit on the estate was held not to bind the Saranjamdar's successor unless clearly authorised, and the evidence of resumption and regrant showed that the occupancy rights had been validly resumed before the plaintiff acquired title by adoption. On limitation, the time spent seeking permission to sue could not be excluded under the Code of Civil Procedure, and absence from British India did not suspend limitation where the Sovereign Prince or Ruling Chief acted through representatives in British India. The plaintiff therefore had no enforceable title and the suit was barred by limitation. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 16 Jul 1928 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276122