<?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>2007 (4) TMI 776 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305634</link>
    <description>A co-operative society&#039;s bye-laws did not, by themselves, make a sale deed to a non-member void where the society was competent to contract and its authorised office-bearers executed the transfer in furtherance of its object to raise funds. The court also stated that once a registered sale deed transfers title, the vendor retains no interest in the property and cannot extinguish the purchaser&#039;s rights by a unilateral cancellation deed. Any cancellation of a void or voidable instrument must be sought before a competent court under the Specific Relief Act. The prior sale therefore stood, and the unilateral cancellation was ineffective against the purchaser and successor in title.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2022 12:37:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=698835" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (4) TMI 776 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305634</link>
      <description>A co-operative society&#039;s bye-laws did not, by themselves, make a sale deed to a non-member void where the society was competent to contract and its authorised office-bearers executed the transfer in furtherance of its object to raise funds. The court also stated that once a registered sale deed transfers title, the vendor retains no interest in the property and cannot extinguish the purchaser&#039;s rights by a unilateral cancellation deed. Any cancellation of a void or voidable instrument must be sought before a competent court under the Specific Relief Act. The prior sale therefore stood, and the unilateral cancellation was ineffective against the purchaser and successor in title.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305634</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>