<?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>1908 (4) TMI 1 - PRIVY COUNCIL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288753</link>
    <description>The High Court at Allahabad reversed the Subordinate Judge&#039;s decision in a dispute over the authenticity of a mortgage deed dated January 10, 1889, ruling the transaction as genuine. The Privy Council upheld this decision, emphasizing the importance of considering surrounding circumstances and subsequent conduct to determine authenticity. The plaintiff prevailed as the court found the mortgage to be legitimate, rejecting the defendants&#039; claim of it being benami. Additionally, the recovery amount under a sub-mortgage was limited to Rs. 10,000, as agreed upon in a subsequent transaction and acknowledged by the defendants, leading to a decree in favor of the plaintiff.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Apr 1908 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2020 11:12:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=616043" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1908 (4) TMI 1 - PRIVY COUNCIL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288753</link>
      <description>The High Court at Allahabad reversed the Subordinate Judge&#039;s decision in a dispute over the authenticity of a mortgage deed dated January 10, 1889, ruling the transaction as genuine. The Privy Council upheld this decision, emphasizing the importance of considering surrounding circumstances and subsequent conduct to determine authenticity. The plaintiff prevailed as the court found the mortgage to be legitimate, rejecting the defendants&#039; claim of it being benami. Additionally, the recovery amount under a sub-mortgage was limited to Rs. 10,000, as agreed upon in a subsequent transaction and acknowledged by the defendants, leading to a decree in favor of the plaintiff.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Apr 1908 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288753</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>