<?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>1926 (9) TMI 2 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458066</link>
    <description>A promissory note taken in the name of one plaintiff remained enforceable by her where delivery was made through the other plaintiff and her later suit ratified that delivery. The vendor&#039;s lien for unpaid purchase money was displaced where, under the vendor&#039;s arrangement, the vendee incurred an enforceable liability to a third person in substitution of the original payment obligation; a benami payee did not preserve the charge without the vendee&#039;s knowledge of that arrangement. Prior deposition admitting execution of the note and indicating a subsisting liability was treated as an acknowledgment, so the suit was within limitation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Sep 1926 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Oct 2024 13:23:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=771976" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1926 (9) TMI 2 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458066</link>
      <description>A promissory note taken in the name of one plaintiff remained enforceable by her where delivery was made through the other plaintiff and her later suit ratified that delivery. The vendor&#039;s lien for unpaid purchase money was displaced where, under the vendor&#039;s arrangement, the vendee incurred an enforceable liability to a third person in substitution of the original payment obligation; a benami payee did not preserve the charge without the vendee&#039;s knowledge of that arrangement. Prior deposition admitting execution of the note and indicating a subsisting liability was treated as an acknowledgment, so the suit was within limitation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Sep 1926 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458066</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>