Skip to content


Chakkantavida Chakkan Abdula and anr. Vs. Thazath Chekkootti and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1910)20MLJ368
AppellantChakkantavida Chakkan Abdula and anr.
RespondentThazath Chekkootti and anr.
Cases ReferredIn Koroth Amman Kutti v. Perungottil Appu Nambiar I.L.R.
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. - ..........upon certain observations of moore and sankaran nair, jj. in koroth amman kutti v. perungottil appu nambiar i.l.r. (1906) m. 322. they have been considered and explained in the judgment of this court a. no. 26 of 1905. the learned judges who decided the case koroth amman kutli v. perungottil appu nambiar i.l.r. (1906) m. 322 are not to be understood as negativing the view that the senior member amongst the grantees has the right of management which a karnavan would have in respect of the properties obtained by gift. such a view would run counter to the decision in kunhacha umma v. kutti mammi hajee i.l.r. (1890) m. 201. in koroth amman kutti v. perungottil appu nambiar i.l.r. (1906) m. 322 the question under consideration was whether the grantees and their descendants became a new.....
Judgment:

1. The plaintiff sues upon a lease granted by the 2nd defendant, the senior of two grantees in Putravakasam.

It is argued that a lease by the senior member alone is invalid, and reliance is placed upon certain observations of Moore and Sankaran Nair, JJ. in Koroth Amman Kutti v. Perungottil Appu Nambiar I.L.R. (1906) M. 322. They have been considered and explained in the judgment of this Court A. No. 26 of 1905. The learned Judges who decided the case Koroth Amman Kutli v. Perungottil Appu Nambiar I.L.R. (1906) M. 322 are not to be understood as negativing the view that the senior member amongst the grantees has the right of management which a Karnavan would have in respect of the properties obtained by gift. Such a view would run counter to the decision in Kunhacha Umma v. Kutti Mammi Hajee I.L.R. (1890) M. 201. In Koroth Amman Kutti v. Perungottil Appu Nambiar I.L.R. (1906) M. 322 the question under consideration was whether the grantees and their descendants became a new Tarwad in respect of the gifted properties. In saying that they did not, the learned Judges did not purport to hold that the senior member amongst the grantees has not the right of management. If they are to hold the properties like a Tarwad there must be a single manager as incident to it. The lease is therefore valid. The second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.


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