AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Lower appellate Court was in error in applying the doctrine that time may not be of the essence of the contract which arises on the
construction of contracts of sale to contracts for re-sale of property conveyed. The true doctrine is stated in Fisher on Mortgages Para II Chapter
I. Section 18 and is that if the transaction is not a mortgage the right to repurchase being an option must be exercised according to the strict terms
of the power; vide Joy v. Birch (1836) 7 Eng. Rep. 22 : Clause and F 57 Ranelagh v. Melton (1861) 62 Eng. Rep. 627 : 2 Dr.& Sm. 278 and
Dibbins v. Dibbins (1896) 2 Ch. 348. There is no reason why a different rule should prevail in India. We therefore reverse the decisions of the
lower courts and remit the case to the court of first instance for the trial of issues one and four in the light of the observations of the Full Bench in
Muthuvelu Mudaliar Vs. Vythilinga Mudaliar and Others, . Costs to abide. Appellant to have refund of costs paid on this Memo of Second
Appeal.