https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293445 A mortgage executed during the subsistence of the Collector's statutory control over the execution-sale process was invalid because no written permission was obtained, and the disability under paragraph 11 of Schedule 3 to the Code of Civil Procedure continued until the sale could be confirmed. Although the security was void, restitution under Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act was still available because the voidness was discovered only after the suit, the claim was not time-barred, and there had been no unequivocal affirmation of the transaction. A separate pleading on Section 65 was not treated as fatal where the issue was already within the controversy and no prejudice was shown. en-us Mon, 14 Dec 1942 00:00:00 +0630 Thu, 11 Feb 2021 16:34:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293445 A mortgage executed during the subsistence of the Collector's statutory control over the execution-sale process was invalid because no written permission was obtained, and the disability under paragraph 11 of Schedule 3 to the Code of Civil Procedure continued until the sale could be confirmed. Although the security was void, restitution under Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act was still available because the voidness was discovered only after the suit, the claim was not time-barred, and there had been no unequivocal affirmation of the transaction. A separate pleading on Section 65 was not treated as fatal where the issue was already within the controversy and no prejudice was shown. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 14 Dec 1942 00:00:00 +0630 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293445