<?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>2008 (4) TMI 825 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308865</link>
    <description>The High Court Division Bench upheld the specific performance of the agreement for the sale of land, rejecting the defense of joint family property. The court emphasized the lack of reason to interfere with the trial court&#039;s judgment and decree, ultimately dismissing the appeal. The court discussed discretionary jurisdiction under the Specific Relief Act but upheld the trial court&#039;s decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Jul 2023 11:28:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=720819" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (4) TMI 825 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308865</link>
      <description>The High Court Division Bench upheld the specific performance of the agreement for the sale of land, rejecting the defense of joint family property. The court emphasized the lack of reason to interfere with the trial court&#039;s judgment and decree, ultimately dismissing the appeal. The court discussed discretionary jurisdiction under the Specific Relief Act but upheld the trial court&#039;s decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308865</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>