<?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>1922 (6) TMI 2 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292018</link>
    <description>A complete testamentary dedication to a family deity creates a protected debuttar estate that cannot be defeated by alienation by shebaits or other fiduciaries, and a purchaser from them acquires no title in derogation of the trust. A suit to protect the estate is not rendered premature merely because letters of administration with a copy of the Will are granted after institution, so long as the title is established before decree. For limitation, Articles 134 and 142 were held inapplicable; the claim fell under Article 144, and adverse possession could not be built by tacking fiduciary possession to an execution purchaser. The recovery claim was therefore within time.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Jun 1922 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2020 13:52:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=629352" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1922 (6) TMI 2 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292018</link>
      <description>A complete testamentary dedication to a family deity creates a protected debuttar estate that cannot be defeated by alienation by shebaits or other fiduciaries, and a purchaser from them acquires no title in derogation of the trust. A suit to protect the estate is not rendered premature merely because letters of administration with a copy of the Will are granted after institution, so long as the title is established before decree. For limitation, Articles 134 and 142 were held inapplicable; the claim fell under Article 144, and adverse possession could not be built by tacking fiduciary possession to an execution purchaser. The recovery claim was therefore within time.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Jun 1922 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292018</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>