<?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>1943 (10) TMI 20 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310319</link>
    <description>An attested khewat entry can save limitation for redemption of an ancient mortgage only if it constitutes a written acknowledgment by the mortgagee or person claiming under him within the prescribed period while the mortgagor&#039;s right of redemption was still subsisting. The 1852 entry merely recorded mortgagee possession and the mortgage money, without proving the date of the mortgage or any acknowledgment of the right of redemption, so it did not extend limitation. The 1878 entry was likewise only a record of possession and mortgage terms, and the plaintiffs failed to prove that it was timely or that the mortgage was still legally subsisting. On that basis, the redemption claims were barred by limitation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Oct 1943 00:00:00 +0630</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2023 17:12:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=729538" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1943 (10) TMI 20 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310319</link>
      <description>An attested khewat entry can save limitation for redemption of an ancient mortgage only if it constitutes a written acknowledgment by the mortgagee or person claiming under him within the prescribed period while the mortgagor&#039;s right of redemption was still subsisting. The 1852 entry merely recorded mortgagee possession and the mortgage money, without proving the date of the mortgage or any acknowledgment of the right of redemption, so it did not extend limitation. The 1878 entry was likewise only a record of possession and mortgage terms, and the plaintiffs failed to prove that it was timely or that the mortgage was still legally subsisting. On that basis, the redemption claims were barred by limitation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Oct 1943 00:00:00 +0630</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310319</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>