https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310315 A sale deed providing for delivery by the vendors was treated as creating a right to refund only when the vendors became incapable of performing that obligation, so limitation did not run from the deed date. The court also accepted that the plaintiff had not obtained possession directly or indirectly through the vendors, and rejected the defence based on delivery and Section 47 CPC. The proposed application of Order 21 Rule 2 CPC was held inapplicable, and the plaint amendment related back to the date of suit, keeping the refund claim within limitation. en-us Thu, 30 Apr 1931 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Oct 2023 15:40:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310315 A sale deed providing for delivery by the vendors was treated as creating a right to refund only when the vendors became incapable of performing that obligation, so limitation did not run from the deed date. The court also accepted that the plaintiff had not obtained possession directly or indirectly through the vendors, and rejected the defence based on delivery and Section 47 CPC. The proposed application of Order 21 Rule 2 CPC was held inapplicable, and the plaint amendment related back to the date of suit, keeping the refund claim within limitation. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 30 Apr 1931 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310315