Skip to content


Asundi Basavon Vs. Bareddi Goviadappa and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1910)20MLJ369
AppellantAsundi Basavon
RespondentBareddi Goviadappa and anr.
Cases ReferredKulai Kada Pillai v. Viswnatha Pillai 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. .....prefers this second appeal and claims a decree against the 1st defendant. the ruling in kulai kada pillai v viswanatha pillai i.l.r. (1904) m. 229 is admittedly against the plaintiffs' contention that the judge should have passed such a decree under the old code. pup janu bibee v. abdul khadar bhuyan i.l.r. (1904) c. 643. iswardhart singh v. bibee sahebzadi i.l.r. (1908) c 538. subramanian chetty v. veerabadran chetty : (1908)18mlj452 and kuppusami v. vijiyanayanar : (1908)18mlj586 were referred to. the first case was distinguished in kulai kada pillai v. viswanadha pillai i.l.r. (1904) m. 229. the second calcutta case merely follows the first. the two law journal cases are distinguishable as not dealing with the present question the first of them simply deals with the question as.....
Judgment:

1. The plaintiff sued as really entitled on a promissory note executed by the 2nd defendant in the name of the first. He also asked for relief against the 1st defendant for not having collected the money and paid it over. The Munsif made a decree against the 2nd defendant only for the suit amount. The Judge reversed the decree and dismissed the suit on appeal by him. The plaintiff preferred no appeal or memorandum of objections, nor does it appear that he asked the Judge to make a decree in his favour against the 1st defendant on the ground that he admitted having received the money. The plaintiff prefers this second appeal and claims a decree against the 1st defendant. The ruling in Kulai Kada Pillai v Viswanatha Pillai I.L.R. (1904) M. 229 is admittedly against the plaintiffs' contention that the Judge should have passed such a decree under the old Code. Pup Janu Bibee v. Abdul Khadar Bhuyan I.L.R. (1904) C. 643. Iswardhart Singh V. Bibee Sahebzadi I.L.R. (1908) C 538. Subramanian Chetty v. Veerabadran Chetty : (1908)18MLJ452 and Kuppusami V. Vijiyanayanar : (1908)18MLJ586 were referred to. The first case was distinguished in Kulai Kada Pillai v. Viswanadha Pillai I.L.R. (1904) M. 229. The second Calcutta case merely follows the first. The two Law Journal cases are distinguishable as not dealing with the present question The first of them simply deals with the question as to the competency of the Court to grant a lower relief not claimed by way of appeal when the higher relief granted to him by the original Court is refused on appeal. The second Law Journal case can be said only to express a possible view. No case has been cited in which it was held that the Judge was wrong in not passing a decree not asked for at all in any manner. We must, therefore, hold, following Kulai Kada Pillai v. Viswnatha Pillai I.L.R. (1904) M. 229 that the suit was rightly dismissed.

2. We dismiss the second appeal with costs.


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