<?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>1951 (12) TMI 18 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289116</link>
    <description>The court held that the oral transfer of immovable property by a husband to his wife in consideration of her dower debt is not valid unless accompanied by a registered document. The transaction was deemed a sale under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, requiring registration. The defendants&#039; application under Order 21, Rule 97 or Rule 100 of the CPC was dismissed due to lack of possession. The plaintiff&#039;s suit based on the oral sale was unsustainable, but they were allowed to retain possession until proper dispossession proceedings. Lower court decrees were upheld with modifications, and each party was to bear their own costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Dec 1951 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2020 15:31:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=617445" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1951 (12) TMI 18 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289116</link>
      <description>The court held that the oral transfer of immovable property by a husband to his wife in consideration of her dower debt is not valid unless accompanied by a registered document. The transaction was deemed a sale under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, requiring registration. The defendants&#039; application under Order 21, Rule 97 or Rule 100 of the CPC was dismissed due to lack of possession. The plaintiff&#039;s suit based on the oral sale was unsustainable, but they were allowed to retain possession until proper dispossession proceedings. Lower court decrees were upheld with modifications, and each party was to bear their own costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Dec 1951 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289116</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>