<?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>2023 (5) TMI 1276 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310992</link>
    <description>An admitted registered sale deed carrying recitals of consideration was held to prevail over oral assertions that the transaction was only collateral security for a money-lending arrangement; the contrary plea failed because oral evidence could not displace the registered instrument without reliable proof of a different intention. The Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act could not be invoked in the suit without proper pleadings and a legally maintainable foundation, and the civil court&#039;s jurisdiction was not displaced on the basis of a vague defence. The High Court&#039;s reliance on that statutory defence was set aside, and the decree based on the plaintiff&#039;s title was restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Nov 2023 20:41:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=733465" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (5) TMI 1276 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310992</link>
      <description>An admitted registered sale deed carrying recitals of consideration was held to prevail over oral assertions that the transaction was only collateral security for a money-lending arrangement; the contrary plea failed because oral evidence could not displace the registered instrument without reliable proof of a different intention. The Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act could not be invoked in the suit without proper pleadings and a legally maintainable foundation, and the civil court&#039;s jurisdiction was not displaced on the basis of a vague defence. The High Court&#039;s reliance on that statutory defence was set aside, and the decree based on the plaintiff&#039;s title was restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310992</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>