<?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>2010 (5) TMI 964 - Punjab &amp; Haryana High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313632</link>
    <description>The HC set aside the order of the Additional Civil Judge, allowing the petitioner to be impleaded as a party in the suit for specific performance of a contract for the sale of land. The court held that the petitioner demonstrated a semblance of title as a co-sharer, making him a necessary party, aligning with the principles established in Sumtibai&#039;s case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2024 16:25:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=751088" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (5) TMI 964 - Punjab &amp; Haryana High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313632</link>
      <description>The HC set aside the order of the Additional Civil Judge, allowing the petitioner to be impleaded as a party in the suit for specific performance of a contract for the sale of land. The court held that the petitioner demonstrated a semblance of title as a co-sharer, making him a necessary party, aligning with the principles established in Sumtibai&#039;s case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313632</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>