<?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>2022 (3) TMI 1593 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313328</link>
    <description>A plaintiff who fails to secure cancellation of a registered sale deed and declaration of title cannot ordinarily sustain a permanent injunction against the true owner where the injunction claim is only consequential to the rejected title challenge. Once the registered deed is accepted and the defendant&#039;s title is recognised, possession cannot be protected by injunction against the true owner merely because the plaintiff is in alleged possession. The Court also treated the challenge as time-barred, noting deemed knowledge from the revenue record and the long-standing deed. Due process was satisfied by adjudication before a competent court, and the true owner was not required to file a separate possession suit before disturbing unlawful possession.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2025 12:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=749413" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (3) TMI 1593 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313328</link>
      <description>A plaintiff who fails to secure cancellation of a registered sale deed and declaration of title cannot ordinarily sustain a permanent injunction against the true owner where the injunction claim is only consequential to the rejected title challenge. Once the registered deed is accepted and the defendant&#039;s title is recognised, possession cannot be protected by injunction against the true owner merely because the plaintiff is in alleged possession. The Court also treated the challenge as time-barred, noting deemed knowledge from the revenue record and the long-standing deed. Due process was satisfied by adjudication before a competent court, and the true owner was not required to file a separate possession suit before disturbing unlawful possession.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313328</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>