High Courts(1901) 03 MAD CK 0013

Narayana Kamti and Others vs Handu Shetty

Madras High Court · Decided on 14 March 1901 · Citation: (1905) 15 MLJ 210

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 193 words
1.

In the instrument in the case (Exhibit A) there is a peculiar provision which does not appear in the cases cited. Here there is a covenant to pay

rent on the 15th of April. No forfeiture is provided for on account of default in such payment. But it is provided that if the default continue until

December, then the lease is to be forfeited. It appears to us that it was clearly not intended that the clause of forfeiture was to be merely in

terrorem.

2.

There is another ground on which the defendant must fail and that is that when pleading his alleged right to be relieved against the forfeiture he

omitted to make any tender or to pay the money into Court but on the contrary pleaded payment unsuccessfully.

3.

The maxim ""he who seeks equity must do equity"" applies apart from the Transfer of Property Act.

4.

The appeal is allowed. The decrees are reversed. There must be a decree for the property and for Rs. 26-6-8.

5.

[Their Lordships then remitted an issue for finding on the question of improvements but this is not material for this report:-Ed.]