SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1916 Supreme(Mad) 254

SADASIVA.AIYAR
Kotam Reddi Seetamma – Appellant
Versus
Vannelakanti Krishnaswami Rao – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

1. The defendant is the appellant, the plaintiffs having obtained a decree in the lower courts for the specific performance of an alleged contract made by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs to grant a lease of the plaint lands for a term of 12 years.

2. I do not think that the plaint relies upon any oral agreement to give a lease of the plaint lands, independent of the "letter" (agreeing to give such a lease) which was executed by the defend-ant. The written statement while admitting the genuineness of the letter, expressly states that the letter is legally ineffective for want of registration.

3. Ordinarily, when the terms of a contract preceded by proposals, negotiations, conditional acceptances, counter proposals and so on, are reduced finally to the form of a document, signed by one or both of the parties, the strong presumption is, not that there are two independent contracts, (the first an oral contract and the second, the written contract), but that the written con-tract is the only final contract between the parties, Ridgway v. Wharton. (1856-7) 6 H.L.C. 238 & 264 As West, J. puts it in Burjorji Cursetji Panthaki v. Muncherji (1880) I.L.R. 5 B











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top