<?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>1902 (7) TMI 1 - PRIVY COUNCIL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289960</link>
    <description>A collateral covenant to pay a fixed monthly sum for ten years, linked to a lease but not forming part of its terms or creating any charge on the property, was held to remain valid without registration and was not barred by the rule against varying a written instrument. The obligation was treated as a personal covenant separate from the lease transaction. The document also explains that the right to receive those instalments did not pass under a later trust deed, because the deed covered only claims then due or payable and existing rights of suit, while the instalments in question accrued later. The later assignment therefore remained effective.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 1902 00:00:00 +0521</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2020 10:53:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=621120" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1902 (7) TMI 1 - PRIVY COUNCIL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289960</link>
      <description>A collateral covenant to pay a fixed monthly sum for ten years, linked to a lease but not forming part of its terms or creating any charge on the property, was held to remain valid without registration and was not barred by the rule against varying a written instrument. The obligation was treated as a personal covenant separate from the lease transaction. The document also explains that the right to receive those instalments did not pass under a later trust deed, because the deed covered only claims then due or payable and existing rights of suit, while the instalments in question accrued later. The later assignment therefore remained effective.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 1902 00:00:00 +0521</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289960</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>