Skip to content


Gangulakurti Sanyasi Lingam Vs. Nidugonda Gavaramma, Wife of Mallayya and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1906)16MLJ411
AppellantGangulakurti Sanyasi Lingam
RespondentNidugonda Gavaramma, Wife of Mallayya and ors.
Cases ReferredKrishnama Ghariar v. Mangammal
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. .....court. the district judge, however, very properly heard the two appeals together and passed one judgment and one decree only upon both appeals.2. the rules of this court (rule 105) lay down the practice that when there are two appeals from the same decree they should, if possible, be heard together and only one decree passed.3. here there is only one appeal entered, and we think that the course adopted is right and that there was no necessity to enter two appeals, and even if two appeals had been entered the proper course would have been to hear them together and to pass one decree. - see also krishnama ghariar v. mangammal (1902) l.r. 26 m.
Judgment:

1. It is objected that in this case there were two appeals to the District Judge from the original, decree of the District Munsif and that therefore there should be two second appeals to this Court. The District Judge, however, very properly heard the two appeals together and passed one judgment and one decree only upon both appeals.

2. The rules of this Court (Rule 105) lay down the practice that when there are two appeals from the same decree they should, if possible, be heard together and only one decree passed.

3. Here there is only one appeal entered, and we think that the course adopted is right and that there was no necessity to enter two appeals, and even if two appeals had been entered the proper course would have been to hear them together and to pass one decree. - See also Krishnama Ghariar v. Mangammal (1902) L.R. 26 M.


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