<?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>1942 (7) TMI 23 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289668</link>
    <description>The court upheld the lower court&#039;s decree awarding half of the property to the plaintiff in a dispute over property ownership and mortgage execution. The court emphasized the importance of establishing legal necessity for property transactions and the need for proper pleading and evidence on crucial issues. As the question of legal necessity was not raised in the pleadings and no opportunity was given to produce evidence on this point, the court dismissed the appeal and maintained the lower court&#039;s decision. Fair opportunity for all parties to present their case before a decision was underscored in the judgment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Jul 1942 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2020 11:42:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=619625" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1942 (7) TMI 23 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289668</link>
      <description>The court upheld the lower court&#039;s decree awarding half of the property to the plaintiff in a dispute over property ownership and mortgage execution. The court emphasized the importance of establishing legal necessity for property transactions and the need for proper pleading and evidence on crucial issues. As the question of legal necessity was not raised in the pleadings and no opportunity was given to produce evidence on this point, the court dismissed the appeal and maintained the lower court&#039;s decision. Fair opportunity for all parties to present their case before a decision was underscored in the judgment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Jul 1942 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289668</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>