<?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>2013 (7) TMI 1157 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289796</link>
    <description>Pattadar passbooks and title deeds carried the statutory presumption under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land Pattadar Passbooks Act, and any challenge based on 1-B register entries had to be pursued by appeal under Section 5-B. At the interlocutory stage, the courts accepted the respondent&#039;s pattadar passbooks, title deeds, adangals and revenue receipts as establishing prima facie entitlement and possession, while the petitioners&#039; reliance on 1-B entries and older revenue records did not displace that material. The concurrent findings were not shown to be perverse or unsupported by evidence, so revisional interference was unwarranted and the temporary injunction was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 22 Aug 2020 10:57:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=620271" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (7) TMI 1157 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289796</link>
      <description>Pattadar passbooks and title deeds carried the statutory presumption under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land Pattadar Passbooks Act, and any challenge based on 1-B register entries had to be pursued by appeal under Section 5-B. At the interlocutory stage, the courts accepted the respondent&#039;s pattadar passbooks, title deeds, adangals and revenue receipts as establishing prima facie entitlement and possession, while the petitioners&#039; reliance on 1-B entries and older revenue records did not displace that material. The concurrent findings were not shown to be perverse or unsupported by evidence, so revisional interference was unwarranted and the temporary injunction was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289796</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>