<?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>1915 (6) TMI 1 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276941</link>
    <description>On cession of territory, enforceable rights against the new sovereign arose only from agreement, express or implied, or from legislation, and antecedent rights against the former sovereign did not automatically continue. The Government&#039;s dealings with the Kasbatis consistently treated the holding as a lease for terms of years, with renewal left to governmental discretion; the first patta negatived any right to insist on renewal, and later pattas and resolutions were likewise inconsistent with proprietary title or a binding obligation to perpetually renew. The legislation relied on did not convert the leasehold into heritable ownership or override the lease&#039;s express limits. The respondent therefore failed to establish a proprietary right or legal entitlement to renewal, and the holding remained leasehold.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jun 1915 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Nov 2018 16:13:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=542837" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1915 (6) TMI 1 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276941</link>
      <description>On cession of territory, enforceable rights against the new sovereign arose only from agreement, express or implied, or from legislation, and antecedent rights against the former sovereign did not automatically continue. The Government&#039;s dealings with the Kasbatis consistently treated the holding as a lease for terms of years, with renewal left to governmental discretion; the first patta negatived any right to insist on renewal, and later pattas and resolutions were likewise inconsistent with proprietary title or a binding obligation to perpetually renew. The legislation relied on did not convert the leasehold into heritable ownership or override the lease&#039;s express limits. The respondent therefore failed to establish a proprietary right or legal entitlement to renewal, and the holding remained leasehold.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jun 1915 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276941</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>