<?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>2017 (5) TMI 1837 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461493</link>
    <description>A buyer&#039;s statutory charge for purchase money under Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act arises on payment and ordinarily continues until conveyance, but it is lost if the buyer is in default or improperly refuses delivery. On the facts, the plaintiffs remained inactive despite the defendants&#039; readiness to perform, so their own default extinguished the enforceable charge. The Court also held that a suit to enforce such a charge is governed by the 12-year period under Article 62 of the Limitation Act, not a three-year period. The suit was therefore not time-barred on that basis, but the claim still failed and dismissal of the suit was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Apr 2025 18:59:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=813122" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (5) TMI 1837 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461493</link>
      <description>A buyer&#039;s statutory charge for purchase money under Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act arises on payment and ordinarily continues until conveyance, but it is lost if the buyer is in default or improperly refuses delivery. On the facts, the plaintiffs remained inactive despite the defendants&#039; readiness to perform, so their own default extinguished the enforceable charge. The Court also held that a suit to enforce such a charge is governed by the 12-year period under Article 62 of the Limitation Act, not a three-year period. The suit was therefore not time-barred on that basis, but the claim still failed and dismissal of the suit was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461493</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>