https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766617 A challenge to a gift deed failed where limitation was not established on the facts, as the plaintiff asserted later discovery of the deed and no conclusive evidence showed knowledge from execution. Allegations of fraud and misrepresentation also failed because the execution was supported by the donor's letter seeking permission, cross-examination admissions, and corroborating testimony of the attesting witness and scribe. The lease covenant requiring prior consent was treated as directory, not invalidating the transfer absent a voiding clause, and the lessor's later conduct amounted to ratification. The objection under Order XVIII Rule 3-A was rejected because later testimony was allowed with leave and recorded reasons. en-us Thu, 13 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Mar 2025 08:25:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766617 A challenge to a gift deed failed where limitation was not established on the facts, as the plaintiff asserted later discovery of the deed and no conclusive evidence showed knowledge from execution. Allegations of fraud and misrepresentation also failed because the execution was supported by the donor's letter seeking permission, cross-examination admissions, and corroborating testimony of the attesting witness and scribe. The lease covenant requiring prior consent was treated as directory, not invalidating the transfer absent a voiding clause, and the lessor's later conduct amounted to ratification. The objection under Order XVIII Rule 3-A was rejected because later testimony was allowed with leave and recorded reasons. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 13 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766617