<?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>1989 (8) TMI 370 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291343</link>
    <description>Settled possession is protected against forcible dispossession, even where the possessor&#039;s underlying right to remain is disputed. The owner must use due process of law and cannot resort to self-help, force, or surreptitious methods to retake possession. On the facts stated, the possessor had been unlawfully dispossessed behind her back, and the court maintained the decree restoring possession through legal process with further protective directions to secure effective delivery.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Dec 2021 17:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=627134" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (8) TMI 370 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291343</link>
      <description>Settled possession is protected against forcible dispossession, even where the possessor&#039;s underlying right to remain is disputed. The owner must use due process of law and cannot resort to self-help, force, or surreptitious methods to retake possession. On the facts stated, the possessor had been unlawfully dispossessed behind her back, and the court maintained the decree restoring possession through legal process with further protective directions to secure effective delivery.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291343</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>