Skip to content


Sri Sri Sri Rajah Rajeswara Gajapathi Narayana Devu Malavapalinu Garu Vs. Chath Venkataramanayya - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1896)6MLJ347
AppellantSri Sri Sri Rajah Rajeswara Gajapathi Narayana Devu Malavapalinu Garu
RespondentChath Venkataramanayya
Excerpt:
- section 16 (1) (c) :[tarun chatterjee & aftab alam,jj] ready and willing to perform-concurrent findings of fact on consideration of evidence on record that appellants-buyers were not ready and willing to perform terms and conditions of agreement for sale - buyers failing to pay balance consideration before agitating matter before supreme court held, concurrent finding cannot be interfered with. section 20: [tarun chatterjee & aftab alam,jj] whether time is the essence of contract held, many instance in contract which repeatedly showed that time was to be of essence of contract were specifically mentioned. clear condition in contract that purchasers would have to definitely deposit balance amount by date stipulated in contract for sale show that time was essence of contract. .....the sum of rs. 1,092-8-0 in question was not a sum payable under a decree, 'but it was a sum paid in disregard of the terms of the decree, and any agreement to pay such amount was void under the provisions of the 2nd clause of 8. 257-a, c.p.c. this being so the matter was not in any way governed by the provisions of section 258, c.p.c. that section contemplates cases where moneys are payable in accordance with the terms of a decree and also plyments made in pursuance of lawful agreements under section 257-a, of the code, viz., such agreements as have received the [334] sanction of the court. here both these conditions were wanting and this being so the section does not apply. for the rest it was the duty of the court on the fact of the disregard of the terms of the decree being.....
Judgment:

1. I think this Appeal must be allowed. The sum of Rs. 1,092-8-0 in question was not a sum payable under a decree, 'but it was a sum paid in disregard of the terms of the decree, and any agreement to pay such amount was void under the provisions of the 2nd Clause of 8. 257-A, C.P.C. This being so the matter was not in any way governed by the provisions of Section 258, C.P.C. That section contemplates cases where moneys are payable in accordance with the terms of a decree and also plyments made in pursuance of lawful agreements under Section 257-A, of the Code, viz., such agreements as have received the [334] sanction of the Court. Here both these conditions were wanting and this being so the section does not apply. For the rest it was the duty of the Court on the fact of the disregard of the terms of the decree being brought to its notice to enforce compliance with the decree and in the present case this must be done by applying the provisions of the last 01. of Section 257-A, C.P.C.

2. In reversal, therefore, of so much of the District Judge's order as relates to the sum of Rs. 1,092-8-0 it is ordered that the said sum of Rs. 1,092-8-0 be applied in satisfaction of the judgment-debt, or if the debt has been fully paid andthere should be a surplus, that surplus be refunded to the judgment-debtor.

3. Appellant will receive his costs of this Appeal from the respondent.

Note.--See Chidambara Pillaiv. Hatna Ammal I.L.B. 3 M. 118.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //