Skip to content


Gunda Reddi Narayana Reddi Vs. Kristna Doss Bala Mukunda Doss - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1882)ILR5Mad87
AppellantGunda Reddi Narayana Reddi
RespondentKristna Doss Bala Mukunda Doss
Excerpt:
rent act - usufructuary mortgagee of zamindari, with powers of mortgagor under the rent act delegated, entitled to sue under the act. - 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..........with you as also all powers we have in any other manner are delegated to you hereby and by a power-of-attorney, * * * we and our successors shall confirm and ratify, as done by us personally, all lawful proceedings taken by you and those whom you may appoint on your behalf * * * in respect of granting pattas and cowles and taking muchalkas and collecting tirva and in respect of disputes arising in the several villages of the taluk.2. the power-of-attorney referred to is not produced, and the instrument of mortgage was not originally sent to this court, but we have now obtained and perused it and hold that the clause above cited is sufficient evidence of the delegation by the zamindar to the respondent of his powers under the rent act, and that the respondent was entitled to.....
Judgment:

Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.

1. The plaintiff', respondent, has obtained the taluk of Narayanavanam in usufructuary mortgage from the Zamindar of Karvetnagaram. The mortgage deed contains the following clause:

As the powers we possess under Act VIII of 1865 or which we may possess under any Act which may come into force in future in respect of the tenure of the village usufructually mortgaged with you as also all powers we have in any other manner are delegated to you hereby and by a power-of-attorney, * * * we and our successors shall confirm and ratify, as done by us personally, all lawful proceedings taken by you and those whom you may appoint on your behalf * * * in respect of granting pattas and cowles and taking muchalkas and collecting tirva and in respect of disputes arising in the several villages of the taluk.

2. The power-of-attorney referred to is not produced, and the instrument of mortgage was not originally sent to this Court, but we have now obtained and perused it and hold that the clause above cited is sufficient evidence of the delegation by the Zamindar to the respondent of his powers under the Rent Act, and that the respondent was entitled to maintain the suit. The further ground of appeal relating to the assessment of waste does not now call for decision. The Lower Appellate Court has held that for the year for which the acceptance of a patta is sought no claim can be made for the assessment of waste.

3. The appeal will, therefore, be dismissed with costs.


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