Skip to content


Shanmugham Asari and anr. Vs. Siyid Nathadu Sahib and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in31Ind.Cas.457
AppellantShanmugham Asari and anr.
RespondentSiyid Nathadu Sahib and ors.
Cases ReferredRamaswami Kone v. Sundara Kone
Excerpt:
decree directing execution of conveyance - time fixed by decree subsequently extended--no payment of money in time--decree-holder, if entitled to obtain conveyance. - .....the plaintiff, who is the 1st respondent before us, failed to pay the amount and applied for time to be given to him and he was granted a month's time on 29th march 1911. he again failed to comply with the order. that being so, the application must be held to be ineffective. the appellant was to convey the properties only if he received the money which he was entitled to, under the decree. as he was not paid money within the time allowed by the court, he was quite within his right to refuse to make the conveyance.2. our attention was drawn to the decision in ramaswami kone v. sundara kone 17 m.l.j. 495. that was a very similar case and the learned judges came to the conclusion that an application which was made after the period allowed by the court, was ineffective. we think that.....
Judgment:

1. The decree in this case directed 'that the 1st defendant do, execute a sale-deed to the plaintiff in respect of the properties described thereunder on receiving the balance of purchase-money, Rs. 250, within one month from this date,' that is, from the date of the decree. The plaintiff, who is the 1st respondent before us, failed to pay the amount and applied for time to be given to him and he was granted a month's time on 29th March 1911. He again failed to comply with the order. That being so, the application must be held to be ineffective. The appellant was to convey the properties only if he received the money which he was entitled to, under the decree. As he was not paid money within the time allowed by the Court, he was quite within his right to refuse to make the conveyance.

2. Our attention was drawn to the decision in Ramaswami Kone v. Sundara Kone 17 M.L.J. 495. That was a very similar case and the learned Judges came to the conclusion that an application which was made after the period allowed by the Court, was ineffective. We think that the rule applies to this case. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the order of the learned District Judge and restore the order of the District Munsif. The respondent must pay the cost of the appellant.


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