Skip to content


Busireddi Pedda Chinnakka Vs. Busireddi Chinna Chumrekka - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectContract
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in14Ind.Cas.120
AppellantBusireddi Pedda Chinnakka
RespondentBusireddi Chinna Chumrekka
Cases ReferredPonnaya Gounden v. Mutlu Gounden
Excerpt:
conveyance - consideration--failure to pay consideration--whether makes conveyance void--condition precedent. - - the plaint sets up coercion and also alleges that defendant failed to return certain jewels which she promised, at the time of the agreement, to give back to plaintiff, but it does not allege that it was agreed that the return of the jewels should be a condition precedent to the deed having legal operation. he says that as the defendant failed to return the jewels, the settlement became unenforceable on account of failure of consideration. the failure to pay the consideration for a conveyance would not defeat the conveyance except where there is an agreement that it should 'take effect only if the consideration is first paid......jewels should be a condition precedent to the deed having legal operation. the district judge does not find that any such condition was agreed to between the parties. he says that as the defendant failed to return the jewels, the settlement became unenforceable on account of failure of consideration. he is entirely mistaken in so holding. if in consideration of the conveyance the defendant agreed to return the jewels, the plaintiff was entitled to enforce their return. the failure to pay the consideration for a conveyance would not defeat the conveyance except where there is an agreement that it should 'take effect only if the consideration is first paid. ponnaya gounden v. mutlu gounden 17 m.k 146. no attempt was made to prove coercion. the decree of the lower appellate court is.....
Judgment:

1. The suit is for the cancellation of a deed of settlement executed by plaintiff in defendant's favour, whereby she gave defendant 1/3 rd of her husband's lands. The plaint sets up coercion and also alleges that defendant failed to return certain jewels which she promised, at the time of the agreement, to give back to plaintiff, but it does not allege that it was agreed that the return of the jewels should be a condition precedent to the deed having legal operation. The District Judge does not find that any such condition was agreed to between the parties. He says that as the defendant failed to return the jewels, the settlement became unenforceable on account of failure of consideration. He is entirely mistaken in so holding. If in consideration of the conveyance the defendant agreed to return the jewels, the plaintiff was entitled to enforce their return. The failure to pay the consideration for a conveyance would not defeat the conveyance except where there is an agreement that it should 'take effect only if the consideration is first paid. Ponnaya Gounden v. Mutlu Gounden 17 M.K 146. No attempt was made to prove coercion. The decree of the lower Appellate Court is reversed and that of the Munsif restored with costs here and in the lower Appellate Court.


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