<?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>1968 (5) TMI 64 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286152</link>
    <description>A registered conveyance takes effect from the date of execution under Section 47 of the Registration Act, so a subsequent purchaser may still obtain protected title if he bought for value in good faith and without notice of the earlier contract. On the facts, the purchaser&#039;s knowledge of the plaintiff&#039;s limited tenancy in one room did not create notice of an unconnected agreement to sell other rooms, and specific performance was therefore unavailable against him. The agreement to sell was also upheld as genuine because the evidence supported proper execution, and no plea was raised that it had not been read over or explained to the alleged pardanashin executant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 May 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Feb 2020 15:40:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=603905" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (5) TMI 64 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286152</link>
      <description>A registered conveyance takes effect from the date of execution under Section 47 of the Registration Act, so a subsequent purchaser may still obtain protected title if he bought for value in good faith and without notice of the earlier contract. On the facts, the purchaser&#039;s knowledge of the plaintiff&#039;s limited tenancy in one room did not create notice of an unconnected agreement to sell other rooms, and specific performance was therefore unavailable against him. The agreement to sell was also upheld as genuine because the evidence supported proper execution, and no plea was raised that it had not been read over or explained to the alleged pardanashin executant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 May 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286152</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>