<?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>2025 (3) TMI 2 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766617</link>
    <description>The HC allowed the appeal and set aside the trial court&#039;s judgment declaring a gift deed void. The trial court failed to properly formulate issues and erroneously focused on fraud without establishing it. While the gift deed violated a lease covenant requiring written consent for transfer, this violation did not invalidate the transfer itself but could only result in non-renewal of the lease. The deed contained sufficient intrinsic evidence of natural love and affection between donor and donee, with no contrary intention proven. The trial court&#039;s permanent injunction restraining defendants from dealing with the property was improper and reversed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Mar 2025 08:25:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=802846" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 2 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766617</link>
      <description>The HC allowed the appeal and set aside the trial court&#039;s judgment declaring a gift deed void. The trial court failed to properly formulate issues and erroneously focused on fraud without establishing it. While the gift deed violated a lease covenant requiring written consent for transfer, this violation did not invalidate the transfer itself but could only result in non-renewal of the lease. The deed contained sufficient intrinsic evidence of natural love and affection between donor and donee, with no contrary intention proven. The trial court&#039;s permanent injunction restraining defendants from dealing with the property was improper and reversed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766617</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>