<?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>1991 (10) TMI 30 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21692</link>
    <description>In final decree proceedings in a partition suit, the High Court held that the court could not use inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to devise a fresh mode of sale of immovable property through an Advocate-Commissioner or to issue a sale certificate, because the Code contained no such authorisation. A sale in partition proceedings is permissible only within the statutory scheme, particularly where Section 2 of the Partition Act applies and division by metes and bounds is not reasonably practicable. The order directing sale and the consequential sale certificate were therefore without jurisdiction and could not stand, and the purchaser&#039;s deposit was to be adjusted by way of refund with interest in the final decree proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Oct 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:30:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=60691" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (10) TMI 30 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21692</link>
      <description>In final decree proceedings in a partition suit, the High Court held that the court could not use inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to devise a fresh mode of sale of immovable property through an Advocate-Commissioner or to issue a sale certificate, because the Code contained no such authorisation. A sale in partition proceedings is permissible only within the statutory scheme, particularly where Section 2 of the Partition Act applies and division by metes and bounds is not reasonably practicable. The order directing sale and the consequential sale certificate were therefore without jurisdiction and could not stand, and the purchaser&#039;s deposit was to be adjusted by way of refund with interest in the final decree proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Oct 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21692</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>