https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284035 The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the suit was barred by limitation. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish fraud with the required specificity and that the sales were valid and binding. The court also held that the provisions of Article 44 of the Limitation Act applied, and the suit was not saved from the bar of limitation even if the plaintiff's allegations of fraud were accepted as true. The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the appellant was ordered to pay the court fee due on the memorandum of appeal. en-us Fri, 14 Mar 1969 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Oct 2019 11:40:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284035 The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the suit was barred by limitation. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish fraud with the required specificity and that the sales were valid and binding. The court also held that the provisions of Article 44 of the Limitation Act applied, and the suit was not saved from the bar of limitation even if the plaintiff's allegations of fraud were accepted as true. The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the appellant was ordered to pay the court fee due on the memorandum of appeal. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 14 Mar 1969 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284035