<?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>1907 (4) TMI 2 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285633</link>
    <description>An objection that a suit was transferred to a Subordinate Judge was held to concern only the mode of assuming jurisdiction, not any inherent lack of power, and it was waived when not raised at trial. Earlier mortgage litigation was treated as res judicata against the mortgagees of 1884 and 1887, preventing them from relitigating the same mortgage rights against the plaintiffs&#039; predecessor and representative. The 1887 mortgagees could not obtain priority by subrogation because they had only made partial payments of earlier interest liabilities, not redeemed the whole prior encumbrance. A compromise clause reducing future interest was ineffective without registration insofar as it affected immovable property rights beyond the suit, and costs followed the parties&#039; respective successes and failures.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Apr 1907 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Jan 2020 14:25:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=600872" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1907 (4) TMI 2 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285633</link>
      <description>An objection that a suit was transferred to a Subordinate Judge was held to concern only the mode of assuming jurisdiction, not any inherent lack of power, and it was waived when not raised at trial. Earlier mortgage litigation was treated as res judicata against the mortgagees of 1884 and 1887, preventing them from relitigating the same mortgage rights against the plaintiffs&#039; predecessor and representative. The 1887 mortgagees could not obtain priority by subrogation because they had only made partial payments of earlier interest liabilities, not redeemed the whole prior encumbrance. A compromise clause reducing future interest was ineffective without registration insofar as it affected immovable property rights beyond the suit, and costs followed the parties&#039; respective successes and failures.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Apr 1907 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285633</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>