<?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>1959 (3) TMI 75 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296916</link>
    <description>Unregistered lease deeds could not be used to prove the lease as a transfer of interest, but they were admissible for the collateral purpose of proving admissions contained in them. Read with the registered sale deed, revenue records, oral testimony, and the patta standing in the appellant&#039;s name and earlier in his father&#039;s name, the evidence established the appellant&#039;s title and possession. The respondent produced no convincing evidence of original ownership. The court therefore accepted the admissions in the unregistered documents and held that the lessee was the appellant&#039;s kauldar, unable to confer better title on the respondent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Aug 2021 12:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=652400" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1959 (3) TMI 75 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296916</link>
      <description>Unregistered lease deeds could not be used to prove the lease as a transfer of interest, but they were admissible for the collateral purpose of proving admissions contained in them. Read with the registered sale deed, revenue records, oral testimony, and the patta standing in the appellant&#039;s name and earlier in his father&#039;s name, the evidence established the appellant&#039;s title and possession. The respondent produced no convincing evidence of original ownership. The court therefore accepted the admissions in the unregistered documents and held that the lessee was the appellant&#039;s kauldar, unable to confer better title on the respondent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296916</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>