https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290601 A Hindu plaintiff's suit for possession of immovable property based on subsisting title after the death of a Hindu female was treated as governed by Article 141 of the Limitation Act, 1908, not the residuary Article 120, so the claim was within time when filed within 12 years. The death of one family member did not dissolve the factory partnership, because the business was treated as a continuing arrangement and an implied agreement negatived dissolution on death. Protection under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was unavailable to defendant 9 because he failed to prove the due enquiry required to establish bona fide purchase for value. en-us Thu, 09 Jan 1930 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Oct 2020 17:08:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290601 A Hindu plaintiff's suit for possession of immovable property based on subsisting title after the death of a Hindu female was treated as governed by Article 141 of the Limitation Act, 1908, not the residuary Article 120, so the claim was within time when filed within 12 years. The death of one family member did not dissolve the factory partnership, because the business was treated as a continuing arrangement and an implied agreement negatived dissolution on death. Protection under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was unavailable to defendant 9 because he failed to prove the due enquiry required to establish bona fide purchase for value. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 09 Jan 1930 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290601