<?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>2007 (4) TMI 749 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279512</link>
    <description>An unregistered family settlement deed, not signed by all co-sharers, could not defeat a partition suit where the stipulated payment to the other co-sharers was never made. The document was treated as one intended to operate only upon future payment, but the evidence and uncontroverted pleadings showed non-payment. In those circumstances, the arrangement did not effect a complete partition by metes and bounds, and the co-owners did not effectively relinquish their rights in the joint property. Even assuming compulsory registration was not required, the deed did not acquire full operative effect and could not bar the partition claim.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Mar 2019 10:35:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=563751" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (4) TMI 749 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279512</link>
      <description>An unregistered family settlement deed, not signed by all co-sharers, could not defeat a partition suit where the stipulated payment to the other co-sharers was never made. The document was treated as one intended to operate only upon future payment, but the evidence and uncontroverted pleadings showed non-payment. In those circumstances, the arrangement did not effect a complete partition by metes and bounds, and the co-owners did not effectively relinquish their rights in the joint property. Even assuming compulsory registration was not required, the deed did not acquire full operative effect and could not bar the partition claim.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279512</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>