Skip to content


The Secreatry of State for India in Council Vs. Illikkal Assan, (Died) and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1916)30MLJ255
AppellantThe Secreatry of State for India in Council
Respondentillikkal Assan, (Died) and ors.
Cases ReferredBhaskaradu v. Subbarayudu
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. we think that a notice under section 7 calling on the person in occupation to show cause why he should not be proceeded against under section 5 or section 6 of the act, does not give rise to a cause of action. this was pointed out in narayana pillai v. secretary of state : (1912)23mlj162 and if the learned judges who decided bhaskaradu v. subbarayudu (1913) 26 m.l.j. 60, were of a different opinion we are with respect unable to agree with them. further whether the present suit be regarded as based on the notice under section 7, or on the levy of penal assessment in june 1910, more than six months before the date of suit, it is in either view barred under section 14 because it was not instituted within six months from the time at which the cause of action arose.
Judgment:

1. We think that a notice under Section 7 calling on the person in occupation to show cause why he should not be proceeded against under Section 5 or Section 6 of the Act, does not give rise to a cause of action. This was pointed out in Narayana Pillai v. Secretary of State : (1912)23MLJ162 and if the learned Judges who decided Bhaskaradu v. Subbarayudu (1913) 26 M.L.J. 60, were of a different opinion we are with respect unable to agree with them. Further whether the present suit be regarded as based on the notice under Section 7, or on the levy of penal assessment in June 1910, more than six months before the date of suit, it is in either view barred under Section 14 because it was not instituted within six months from the time at which the cause of action arose.


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