<?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>1884 (3) TMI 1 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276960</link>
    <description>A statutory sale for arrears of abkari revenue under Madras Act II of 1864 did not pass free of prior encumbrances because the freedom-from-encumbrances rule applied only where the land itself was the statutory security for the arrear. The reference in the Abkari Act to recovery &quot;in like manner&quot; imported only the procedural machinery of collection and did not extend the substantive consequence of extinguishing prior interests. The arrears also did not rank as Crown-debt with priority over an earlier hypothecation, as the court declined to treat English Crown priority as an automatic rule in the mufassal and held that priority did not override the pre-existing security.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Mar 1884 00:00:00 +0521</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Nov 2018 12:00:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=542868" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1884 (3) TMI 1 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276960</link>
      <description>A statutory sale for arrears of abkari revenue under Madras Act II of 1864 did not pass free of prior encumbrances because the freedom-from-encumbrances rule applied only where the land itself was the statutory security for the arrear. The reference in the Abkari Act to recovery &quot;in like manner&quot; imported only the procedural machinery of collection and did not extend the substantive consequence of extinguishing prior interests. The arrears also did not rank as Crown-debt with priority over an earlier hypothecation, as the court declined to treat English Crown priority as an automatic rule in the mufassal and held that priority did not override the pre-existing security.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Mar 1884 00:00:00 +0521</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276960</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>