Vellavil Periuthatta Yetchanen Nambudri and anr. Vs. Siva Rama Pattar and ors. - Court Judgment
|Appellant||Vellavil Periuthatta Yetchanen Nambudri and anr.|
|Respondent||Siva Rama Pattar and ors.|
|Cases Referred||Kelu v. Paidell I.L.R.|
- 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. .....relying on the ease in kelu v. paidel i.l.r. (1386) m. 473 that the plaintiffs are accordingly not entitled to a decree. it is contended that it is not incumbent on the plaintiffs to prove fraud, and that it is sufficient for them to show that the wages decreed were not really due, and reliance is placed on the full bench dicision in ittiachan v. vellappan i.l.r. (1888) m. 484 and other cases which followed it.2. it was pointed out in kelu v. paide i.l.r. (1386) m. 473 that there is a distinction, between the position of those who are possible future uralers or have a reversionary uraima right as the plaintiffs have, and the anandravans of an ordinary tarwad having a present interest in the property. in the one case the devasom is fully represented by its uralers; in the other the tarwad.....
1. The Subordinate Judge finds that there was no fraud or collusion on the part of the Uralers who were defendants in Small Cause Suit No. 377 of 1883, and holds relying on the ease in Kelu v. Paidel I.L.R. (1386) M. 473 that the plaintiffs are accordingly not entitled to a decree. It is contended that it is not incumbent on the plaintiffs to prove fraud, and that it is sufficient for them to show that the wages decreed were not really due, and reliance is placed on the Full Bench dicision in Ittiachan v. Vellappan I.L.R. (1888) M. 484 and other cases which followed it.
2. It was pointed out in Kelu v. Paide I.L.R. (1386) M. 473 that there is a distinction, between the position of those who are possible future Uralers or have a reversionary Uraima right as the plaintiffs have, and the Anandravans of an ordinary tarwad having a present interest in the property. In the one case the Devasom is fully represented by its Uralers; in the other the tarwad is the substantial defendant. A mere reversioner or other person prospectively entitled is not crdinarily permitted to set astde a decree against the representative for the time being of the inheritance except on the ground of fraud.
3. In the present case the Subordinate Judge assigns sufficient reason for finding that there was no fraud, and following the decision in Kelu v. Paidell I.L.R. (1386) M. 473 we must dismiss the appeal with costs.