Skip to content


Chudru Sattaya and ors. Vs. Marina Thinhuiah - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1908)18MLJ217
AppellantChudru Sattaya and ors.
RespondentMarina Thinhuiah
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. the plaintiffs disputed the fairness of the division of the lands as between the 1st defendant and defendants 2 to 5, but the court held that the division was fair. the fact that the plaintiffs did not take possession of the land falling to the 1st defendant's share when they might have done so, does not preclude them from claiming mesne profits from the parties who in accordance with the decisions of the courts were wrongfully in possession in 1898 and 1899.2. in the lower appellate court, the only contest was as to whether defendants nos. 2 to 5 or defendants nos. 6 to 11 were in possession and liable for mesne profits.3. the second appeal is dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

1. The plaintiffs disputed the fairness of the division of the lands as between the 1st defendant and defendants 2 to 5, but the Court held that the division was fair. The fact that the plaintiffs did not take possession of the land falling to the 1st defendant's share when they might have done so, does not preclude them from claiming mesne profits from the parties who in accordance with the decisions of the Courts were wrongfully in possession in 1898 and 1899.

2. In the lower appellate Court, the only contest was as to whether defendants Nos. 2 to 5 or defendants Nos. 6 to 11 were in possession and liable for mesne profits.

3. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.


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