Skip to content


Ayancheri Kovilagath Rama Varma Tambaran Vs. Acholathil Varikoli Raman Nayar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1882)ILR5Mad89
AppellantAyancheri Kovilagath Rama Varma Tambaran
RespondentAcholathil Varikoli Raman Nayar and ors.
Cases ReferredRaja Varmah Raja v. Revi Varma Raja I.L.R.
Excerpt:
.....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. - 3. if the validity of the transfer is not made out, it follows that plaintiff cannot redeem and his suit for redemption must fail.innes and muttusami ayyar, jj.1. we cannot see our way to distinguishing this case in principle from raja varmah raja v. revi varma raja i.l.r. 1 mad. 235 in which the privy council held that transfers of religious trusts were void.2. there seems to be no real distinction between the mischief of such a transfer in perpetuity and a transfer for the long period of ninety-six years.3. if the validity of the transfer is not made out, it follows that plaintiff cannot redeem and his suit for redemption must fail.4. we dismiss the appeal with costs.
Judgment:

Innes and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.

1. We cannot see our way to distinguishing this case in principle from Raja Varmah Raja v. Revi Varma Raja I.L.R. 1 Mad. 235 in which the Privy Council held that transfers of religious trusts were void.

2. There seems to be no real distinction between the mischief of such a transfer in perpetuity and a transfer for the long period of ninety-six years.

3. If the validity of the transfer is not made out, it follows that plaintiff cannot redeem and his suit for redemption must fail.

4. We dismiss the appeal with costs.


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