Skip to content


N. Rama Row Vs. Xavier Restov Fernand - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1892)2MLJ217
AppellantN. Rama Row
RespondentXavier Restov Fernand
Cases ReferredFollowing Mahadevi v. Vikrama I.
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. .....show when the stamp papers were called for, but assuming that they were called for on the 18th december and deposited on 14th january, the appeal would be just in time. following mahadevi v. vikrama i. l r 14 m 372, we are of opinion that the time for obtaining copy should be excluded. moreover the acting district judge on the 1st march 1890, excused the delay in presentation as he was entitled to do, (see reference under forest act v of i.l.r. 1882 m 210) and admitted the appeal. we set aside the decree of the district judge and remand the appeal to be heard and determined on its merits. costs to follow the result.
Judgment:

1. The date of the decree of the Sub-Collector was 16th December 1889. The time allowed for appeal was one month. Appellant applied for copy on 17th December. There is nothing to show when the stamp papers were called for, but assuming that they were called for on the 18th December and deposited on 14th January, the appeal would be just in time. Following Mahadevi v. Vikrama I. L R 14 M 372, we are of opinion that the time for obtaining copy should be excluded. Moreover the Acting District Judge on the 1st March 1890, excused the delay in presentation as he was entitled to do, (see Reference under Forest Act V of I.L.R. 1882 M 210) and admitted the appeal. We set aside the decree of the District Judge and remand the appeal to be heard and determined on its merits. Costs to follow the result.


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