<?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>1877 (6) TMI 1 - PRIVY COUNCIL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289298</link>
    <description>The Registration Act, 1871 was construed to mean that a deed executed by several persons could not be refused registration in its entirety merely because one executant denied execution. The refusal provision operated distributively, so any refusal was confined to the person denying execution or otherwise under disability, while the deed remained effective for executants who admitted it. The Act was read as permitting registration to have different effects for different executants and as not treating an otherwise valid registered instrument as a nullity because of procedural error by the registering officer. The deed therefore remained admissible and operative against the sons who admitted execution.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jun 1877 00:00:00 +0521</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2020 10:11:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=618290" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1877 (6) TMI 1 - PRIVY COUNCIL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289298</link>
      <description>The Registration Act, 1871 was construed to mean that a deed executed by several persons could not be refused registration in its entirety merely because one executant denied execution. The refusal provision operated distributively, so any refusal was confined to the person denying execution or otherwise under disability, while the deed remained effective for executants who admitted it. The Act was read as permitting registration to have different effects for different executants and as not treating an otherwise valid registered instrument as a nullity because of procedural error by the registering officer. The deed therefore remained admissible and operative against the sons who admitted execution.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jun 1877 00:00:00 +0521</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289298</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>