https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289481 Section 226(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935 was construed strictly as an ouster clause, limited to cases where the claimant was personally liable for revenue or sought relief directly concerning recovery of arrears. A third-party suit for declaration of title and consequential reliefs was therefore not barred merely because the property was connected with revenue recovery, and the attachment-related prayers did not change the suit's essential character. Article 225 of the Constitution was then treated as removing the earlier restriction on High Court original jurisdiction in revenue matters, with Articles 367(1) and 395 and Section 6(e) of the General Clauses Act not preserving the former bar against pending proceedings. en-us Fri, 08 Jan 1954 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Aug 2020 16:07:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289481 Section 226(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935 was construed strictly as an ouster clause, limited to cases where the claimant was personally liable for revenue or sought relief directly concerning recovery of arrears. A third-party suit for declaration of title and consequential reliefs was therefore not barred merely because the property was connected with revenue recovery, and the attachment-related prayers did not change the suit's essential character. Article 225 of the Constitution was then treated as removing the earlier restriction on High Court original jurisdiction in revenue matters, with Articles 367(1) and 395 and Section 6(e) of the General Clauses Act not preserving the former bar against pending proceedings. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 08 Jan 1954 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289481