Skip to content


Narasimma Chetti Vs. Surianarayana Aiyar and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1892)IIMLJ153
AppellantNarasimma Chetti
RespondentSurianarayana Aiyar and anr.
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. 1. it is next contended that the judge is in error in holding that plaintiff's perpetual lease is not binding on the purchaser in that it was granted for a sum below the faisal assessment and the proportional revenue payable on it.2. a perpetual, lease is in our opinion an encumbrance within the meaning of act ii of 1864. it creates an under-tenure which diminishes the value of the estate.3. as for the contention that the permanent lease in question fell under section 82 of the act, as there was no declaration by the collector of its being valid, it must be upheld. we are of opinion that the absence of the declaration by the collector is immaterial and will not preclude the purchaser from avoiding it on the ground, of its being an encumbrance under section 42. we are of opinion therefore.....
Judgment:

1. It is next contended that the judge is in error in holding that plaintiff's perpetual lease is not binding on the purchaser in that it was granted for a sum below the faisal assessment and the proportional revenue payable on it.

2. A perpetual, lease is in our opinion an encumbrance within the meaning of Act II of 1864. It creates an under-tenure which diminishes the value of the estate.

3. As for the contention that the permanent lease in question fell under Section 82 of the Act, as there was no declaration by the Collector of its being valid, it must be upheld. We are of opinion that the absence of the declaration by the Collector is immaterial and will not preclude the purchaser from avoiding it on the ground, of its being an encumbrance under Section 42. We are of opinion therefore that the decree of the judge must be upheld for the reasons stated above. This second appeal is dismissed with costs.


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