<?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>1971 (1) TMI 127 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302232</link>
    <description>The true character of a transaction must be determined from its terms and surrounding circumstances, not its label. A document will not qualify as a kanam under the Kerala Land Reforms Act unless it contains the statutory incidents such as renewal on expiry or payment of michavaram or customary dues; a covenant to pay land revenue to the State is not the same as rent payable to the grantor. On the facts, the absence of renewal and customary dues, together with the advance, interest, redemption terms, and conduct of the parties, showed that the dominant object was security for money. The transaction was therefore a mortgage, entitling the transferee to redeem and recover possession.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jan 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 May 2022 11:31:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=678733" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1971 (1) TMI 127 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302232</link>
      <description>The true character of a transaction must be determined from its terms and surrounding circumstances, not its label. A document will not qualify as a kanam under the Kerala Land Reforms Act unless it contains the statutory incidents such as renewal on expiry or payment of michavaram or customary dues; a covenant to pay land revenue to the State is not the same as rent payable to the grantor. On the facts, the absence of renewal and customary dues, together with the advance, interest, redemption terms, and conduct of the parties, showed that the dominant object was security for money. The transaction was therefore a mortgage, entitling the transferee to redeem and recover possession.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jan 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302232</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>