Muttuchidambara Vs. Karuppa - Court Judgment
|Judge||Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J., ;Kernan, ;Kindersley, ;Muttusami Ayyar and ;Hutchins, JJ.|
civil procedure code, section 265 - act viii of 1859, section 225--raiyatwari estates--partition. - 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..........section 265 of the code of civil procedure, requiring that a decree for the partition of an estate paying revenue to government be executed through the collector of the district, are applicable to raiyatwari holdings. this section corresponds with section 225 of the code of 1859. it was held by the sadr court that raiyatwari holdings were not estates paying revenue to government, and this construction has always been acted upon in this presidency. it would unsettle a large number of titles to adopt a different construction now, and whatever we might have thought if the matter had come before us as res integra, we are not prepared to disturb a practice so long established.2. the orders of the district judge and the munsif must be set aside and the munsif directed to pass fresh orders. the.....
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J., Kernan, Kindersley, Muttusami Ayyar and Hutchins, JJ.
1. The question for decision is whether the provisions of Section 265 of the Code of Civil Procedure, requiring that a decree for the partition of an estate paying revenue to Government be executed through the Collector of the District, are applicable to raiyatwari holdings. This section corresponds with Section 225 of the Code of 1859. It was held by the Sadr Court that raiyatwari holdings were not estates paying revenue to Government, and this construction has always been acted upon in this Presidency. It would unsettle a large number of titles to adopt a different construction now, and whatever we might have thought if the matter had come before us as res Integra, we are not prepared to disturb a practice so long established.
2. The orders of the District Judge and the Munsif must be set aside and the Munsif directed to pass fresh orders. The costs of the appeal will abide and follow the result.