<?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>2021 (12) TMI 147 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415381</link>
    <description>A purported sale of immovable property unsupported by any proved consideration is not a sale in law under section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and cannot divest the joint owner&#039;s undivided share. On the facts stated, the deeds executed by the attorney in favour of his wife and minor sons were treated as void, conferring no right, title or interest on the transferees, so the appellant retained an undivided half share and joint possession. A belated amendment seeking a declaration of invalidity was not barred by limitation because the original plaint had already pleaded that the deeds were null and void, and a void document may be ignored without separate declaratory relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Dec 2021 08:44:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=662851" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (12) TMI 147 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415381</link>
      <description>A purported sale of immovable property unsupported by any proved consideration is not a sale in law under section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and cannot divest the joint owner&#039;s undivided share. On the facts stated, the deeds executed by the attorney in favour of his wife and minor sons were treated as void, conferring no right, title or interest on the transferees, so the appellant retained an undivided half share and joint possession. A belated amendment seeking a declaration of invalidity was not barred by limitation because the original plaint had already pleaded that the deeds were null and void, and a void document may be ignored without separate declaratory relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415381</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>