https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288079 The court held that a mistake of law must be mixed with specific facts relating to an individual's private right to qualify for relief under Section 72 of the Contract Act and Article 96 of the Limitation Act. In this case, as the mistake of law did not pertain to the petitioner's private right, relief was denied. The court also determined that the payment made was voluntary, and the plaintiff was not entitled to recover it. The judgment extensively analyzed legal principles and past cases, ultimately ruling against the petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition. en-us Tue, 14 Feb 1928 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 May 2020 17:50:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288079 The court held that a mistake of law must be mixed with specific facts relating to an individual's private right to qualify for relief under Section 72 of the Contract Act and Article 96 of the Limitation Act. In this case, as the mistake of law did not pertain to the petitioner's private right, relief was denied. The court also determined that the payment made was voluntary, and the plaintiff was not entitled to recover it. The judgment extensively analyzed legal principles and past cases, ultimately ruling against the petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 14 Feb 1928 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288079