<?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>1872 (3) TMI 2 - PRIVY COUNCIL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310070</link>
    <description>An execution sale of an estate was upheld because no substantial irregularity was shown in the Collector&#039;s proceedings or in the conduct of the sale. The sale record identified the decree and the property was treated as the registered proprietor&#039;s estate, supporting the appellant&#039;s title acquired through enforcement of a rent decree. A prior heirship decree was held operative only between the parties to that litigation and not as a decree in rem, so it could not defeat the sale as against the respondent. The respondent&#039;s challenge to the execution sale therefore failed, and the appellant retained the benefit of the sale.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 1872 00:00:00 +0521</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Oct 2023 10:10:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=728124" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1872 (3) TMI 2 - PRIVY COUNCIL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310070</link>
      <description>An execution sale of an estate was upheld because no substantial irregularity was shown in the Collector&#039;s proceedings or in the conduct of the sale. The sale record identified the decree and the property was treated as the registered proprietor&#039;s estate, supporting the appellant&#039;s title acquired through enforcement of a rent decree. A prior heirship decree was held operative only between the parties to that litigation and not as a decree in rem, so it could not defeat the sale as against the respondent. The respondent&#039;s challenge to the execution sale therefore failed, and the appellant retained the benefit of the sale.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 1872 00:00:00 +0521</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310070</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>