<?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>1957 (7) TMI 46 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284036</link>
    <description>Fraud will extend limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act only if it is specifically pleaded and proved to have kept the applicant from knowledge of the right to sue or apply. The court found the alleged village panchayat, said to have induced silence, was an afterthought and not proved, and the applicant already knew the sale date had been fixed. Section 18 was therefore not attracted, and limitation was not extended for challenging the execution sale on fraud grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Jul 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Oct 2019 11:43:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=592018" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1957 (7) TMI 46 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284036</link>
      <description>Fraud will extend limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act only if it is specifically pleaded and proved to have kept the applicant from knowledge of the right to sue or apply. The court found the alleged village panchayat, said to have induced silence, was an afterthought and not proved, and the applicant already knew the sale date had been fixed. Section 18 was therefore not attracted, and limitation was not extended for challenging the execution sale on fraud grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Jul 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284036</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>