<?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>2004 (8) TMI 770 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309482</link>
    <description>Where execution of a registered mortgage deed is admitted, the recitals in the instrument together with supporting oral evidence may discharge the plaintiff&#039;s initial burden on consideration, after which the burden shifts to the defendant to disprove it. The note further states that failure to examine the material executant can justify an adverse inference, and that absence of attesting witnesses does not defeat the claim where execution is not specifically denied and the statutory witness requirement does not operate on those facts. On this reasoning, the mortgage debt was held enforceable and the suit claim was decreed with costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Sep 2023 16:24:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=725175" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (8) TMI 770 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309482</link>
      <description>Where execution of a registered mortgage deed is admitted, the recitals in the instrument together with supporting oral evidence may discharge the plaintiff&#039;s initial burden on consideration, after which the burden shifts to the defendant to disprove it. The note further states that failure to examine the material executant can justify an adverse inference, and that absence of attesting witnesses does not defeat the claim where execution is not specifically denied and the statutory witness requirement does not operate on those facts. On this reasoning, the mortgage debt was held enforceable and the suit claim was decreed with costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309482</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>