https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283264 The court dismissed the second appeal, affirming the lower courts' findings. It held that the plaintiff's filing of the suit constituted a valid demand for possession, rejecting the appellant's argument that the plaintiff must return to India. The court interpreted the Will as allowing the plaintiff to claim possession without returning to India. Additionally, it ruled that the plaintiff's persistent requests constituted a valid demand, entitling him to possession. The court also determined that the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act did not affect the plaintiff's title to the property, dismissing the appellant's defense based on the Act. en-us Fri, 06 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Sep 2019 18:27:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283264 The court dismissed the second appeal, affirming the lower courts' findings. It held that the plaintiff's filing of the suit constituted a valid demand for possession, rejecting the appellant's argument that the plaintiff must return to India. The court interpreted the Will as allowing the plaintiff to claim possession without returning to India. Additionally, it ruled that the plaintiff's persistent requests constituted a valid demand, entitling him to possession. The court also determined that the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act did not affect the plaintiff's title to the property, dismissing the appellant's defense based on the Act. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 06 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283264