https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312646 Money obtained under a contract induced by fraud did not give the wrongdoer an indefeasible title; after rescission, the transferee or receiver could claim no better interest than the fraudulent party possessed, and the plaintiff's title remained enforceable. Section 86 of the Indian Trusts Act was considered in relation to fraudulent or rescindable transfers and notice to the transferee, but in either view the receiver could not retain the money against the transferor. A declaratory suit was also held maintainable because it had been filed before the insolvency adjudication and property not truly belonging to the insolvent could not be treated as part of the divisible estate. en-us Thu, 20 Sep 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 Feb 2024 18:18:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312646 Money obtained under a contract induced by fraud did not give the wrongdoer an indefeasible title; after rescission, the transferee or receiver could claim no better interest than the fraudulent party possessed, and the plaintiff's title remained enforceable. Section 86 of the Indian Trusts Act was considered in relation to fraudulent or rescindable transfers and notice to the transferee, but in either view the receiver could not retain the money against the transferor. A declaratory suit was also held maintainable because it had been filed before the insolvency adjudication and property not truly belonging to the insolvent could not be treated as part of the divisible estate. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 20 Sep 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312646