<?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>An oral transfer of immovable property by a Muhammadan husband to his wife in discharge of an ascertained dower debt was treated as a hiba-bil-ewaz in form but as a sale in substance under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act; because the property was immovable and above the statutory value, title could pass only by a written registered instrument, so the plaintiff acquired no title from the oral transfer. The obstruction and redelivery order also failed because the evidence showed the plaintiff and his vendor had remained in possession throughout and the defendants were never in possession, making the execution application unsustainable.</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>An oral transfer of immovable property by a Muhammadan husband to his wife in discharge of an ascertained dower debt was treated as a hiba-bil-ewaz in form but as a sale in substance under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act; because the property was immovable and above the statutory value, title could pass only by a written registered instrument, so the plaintiff acquired no title from the oral transfer. The obstruction and redelivery order also failed because the evidence showed the plaintiff and his vendor had remained in possession throughout and the defendants were never in possession, making the execution application unsustainable.</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>