https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281749 An agreement to sell was treated as not creating an interest in immovable property, so it did not amount to a transfer or alienation barred by section 48(d) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, and remained capable of specific performance. The plaintiff's readiness and willingness was upheld on the basis of concurrent factual findings. The plea of limitation, being a mixed question of law and fact and not having been specifically raised below, was not entertained in second appeal. A new plea under section 31 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act was also refused because it had not been pleaded or urged in the courts below and lacked the necessary factual foundation. en-us Tue, 05 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Jul 2019 20:50:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281749 An agreement to sell was treated as not creating an interest in immovable property, so it did not amount to a transfer or alienation barred by section 48(d) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, and remained capable of specific performance. The plaintiff's readiness and willingness was upheld on the basis of concurrent factual findings. The plea of limitation, being a mixed question of law and fact and not having been specifically raised below, was not entertained in second appeal. A new plea under section 31 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act was also refused because it had not been pleaded or urged in the courts below and lacked the necessary factual foundation. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 05 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281749