Interpretation of contractual terms and implication of conditions.

Headnote:
Interpretation - Condition - Summary: The court held that the words 'when you require' imply a condition, similar to the interpretation of 'on demand' in a previous case. The Sub-Judge's decision was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
Fact of the Case:

The Sub-Judge construed the words 'when you require' as implying a condition, and held that the suit was not barred.
Finding of the Court:

The court upheld the Sub-Judge's decision and dismissed the appeal with costs.
Issues: Interpretation of words 'when you require', applicability of a condition, and whether the suit was barred.
Ratio Decidendi: The words 'when you require' were interpreted to imply a condition, similar to the interpretation of 'on demand' in a previous case.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.

JUDGMENT

1. We think that in this case the words construed by the Sub-Judge as "when yon require" imply a condition as was also decided in a case where the words actually used were "on demand." (S. A 200 of 1897). There the words were not considered as merely technical words, as they were interpreted to be in Perumal Ayyan v. Alagirisami Bhagacathar, I. L. R., 20 M., 245. The Sub-Judge was therefore right in holding the suit was not barred, and this appeal is dismissed with costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document