https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290164 The Privy Council decision in Soni Ram v. Kanhaiya Lal did not displace the earlier majority view on the Bengal Tenancy Act's amended limitation provisions, because that case concerned a different limitation regime and did not determine the precise issue here. The Court applied the principle that vested rights are not taken away unless Parliament's intention is expressed in clear terms, and held that the amended provisions operated only where compliance was possible. Where the new conditions could not be satisfied from the outset, they did not bar the suit. The plaintiff's vested right of suit therefore survived, and the Munsif's decree was restored with costs throughout. en-us Fri, 24 Apr 1914 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Sep 2020 14:48:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290164 The Privy Council decision in Soni Ram v. Kanhaiya Lal did not displace the earlier majority view on the Bengal Tenancy Act's amended limitation provisions, because that case concerned a different limitation regime and did not determine the precise issue here. The Court applied the principle that vested rights are not taken away unless Parliament's intention is expressed in clear terms, and held that the amended provisions operated only where compliance was possible. Where the new conditions could not be satisfied from the outset, they did not bar the suit. The plaintiff's vested right of suit therefore survived, and the Munsif's decree was restored with costs throughout. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 24 Apr 1914 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290164