<?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>1945 (7) TMI 16 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456709</link>
    <description>Separate property may become partnership property by agreement and by being treated as part of the partnership stock; no registered conveyance is required where the parties&#039; real intention is to bring it into common ownership. On the facts accepted, the land and structures had been treated as partnership assets, so the plaintiffs were entitled to a half-share. Estoppel based on landlord-tenant relationship did not defeat the declaratory claim because the suit sought broader relief for co-ownership title and joint possession, not merely enforcement of tenancy rights. The decree was therefore altered to recognise the plaintiffs&#039; title to a half-share and joint possession.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jul 1945 00:00:00 +0630</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Aug 2024 11:59:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=763568" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1945 (7) TMI 16 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456709</link>
      <description>Separate property may become partnership property by agreement and by being treated as part of the partnership stock; no registered conveyance is required where the parties&#039; real intention is to bring it into common ownership. On the facts accepted, the land and structures had been treated as partnership assets, so the plaintiffs were entitled to a half-share. Estoppel based on landlord-tenant relationship did not defeat the declaratory claim because the suit sought broader relief for co-ownership title and joint possession, not merely enforcement of tenancy rights. The decree was therefore altered to recognise the plaintiffs&#039; title to a half-share and joint possession.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jul 1945 00:00:00 +0630</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456709</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>