<?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 (4) TMI 1647 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460456</link>
    <description>A registered sale deed carries a prima facie presumption of due execution and genuineness, and the burden lies on the challenger to rebut it with cogent evidence; that presumption was not displaced here. An alleged oral agreement for reconveyance can support specific performance only if a concluded contract and consensus ad idem are proved by reliable evidence; the plaintiff failed to do so, as interested oral testimony was insufficient. The circumstances relied on, including possession and delivery of prior title deeds, did not override the effect of the registered conveyance, and the first appellate court misapplied the burden of proof. The decree for specific performance was therefore unsustainable and the trial court&#039;s dismissal of the suit was restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Jan 2025 15:46:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=791953" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (4) TMI 1647 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460456</link>
      <description>A registered sale deed carries a prima facie presumption of due execution and genuineness, and the burden lies on the challenger to rebut it with cogent evidence; that presumption was not displaced here. An alleged oral agreement for reconveyance can support specific performance only if a concluded contract and consensus ad idem are proved by reliable evidence; the plaintiff failed to do so, as interested oral testimony was insufficient. The circumstances relied on, including possession and delivery of prior title deeds, did not override the effect of the registered conveyance, and the first appellate court misapplied the burden of proof. The decree for specific performance was therefore unsustainable and the trial court&#039;s dismissal of the suit was restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460456</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>