https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291367 A co-owner who also held the other sharers' interest under a tenancy arrangement could not, in a partition suit, invoke the full equitable rule for compensation for improvements where the parties' contract specifically regulated structures, removal rights, and damages; the appropriate relief was limited to allotting, so far as practicable, the land on which the structures stood. A claim of adverse possession over land not covered by the leases failed because the evidence did not show clear, hostile, and exclusive possession against co-owners. The service objection also failed because valid registered and subsequent notice had already been effected, and the later unnecessary resort to substituted service did not invalidate the completed service. en-us Mon, 13 May 1929 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Nov 2020 14:34:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291367 A co-owner who also held the other sharers' interest under a tenancy arrangement could not, in a partition suit, invoke the full equitable rule for compensation for improvements where the parties' contract specifically regulated structures, removal rights, and damages; the appropriate relief was limited to allotting, so far as practicable, the land on which the structures stood. A claim of adverse possession over land not covered by the leases failed because the evidence did not show clear, hostile, and exclusive possession against co-owners. The service objection also failed because valid registered and subsequent notice had already been effected, and the later unnecessary resort to substituted service did not invalidate the completed service. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 13 May 1929 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291367