https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21608 The court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that she was divested of her title to the property covered by the civil court decree from 1952. The Tribunal's decision was overturned, emphasizing that a declaratory decree recognizing ownership from a prior date is valid, even without registration. The court rejected the Revenue's argument regarding ownership based on compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, stating it required further factual examination. The reference was answered in the negative, in favor of the assessee, with no order as to costs. en-us Wed, 10 Jul 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:28:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21608 The court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that she was divested of her title to the property covered by the civil court decree from 1952. The Tribunal's decision was overturned, emphasizing that a declaratory decree recognizing ownership from a prior date is valid, even without registration. The court rejected the Revenue's argument regarding ownership based on compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, stating it required further factual examination. The reference was answered in the negative, in favor of the assessee, with no order as to costs. Case-Laws Wealth-tax Wed, 10 Jul 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21608