Edamanna Vs. Kannan Nayar and ors. and Manya Umma and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- section 16 (1) (c) :[tarun chatterjee & aftab alam,jj] ready and willing to perform-concurrent findings of fact on consideration of evidence on record that appellants-buyers were not ready and willing to perform terms and conditions of agreement for sale - buyers failing to pay balance consideration before agitating matter before supreme court held, concurrent finding cannot be interfered with. section 20: [tarun chatterjee & aftab alam,jj] whether time is the essence of contract held, many instance in contract which repeatedly showed that time was to be of essence of contract were specifically mentioned. clear condition in contract that purchasers would have to definitely deposit balance amount by date stipulated in contract for sale show that time was essence of contract. 1. we are of opinion that the answer to the question referred must be that one of two co-uralans may bring a suit to redeem a mortgage without averring or proving that the other uralan was asked to join as plaintiff in the suit.2. it would be impossible to hold otherwise in the face of sections 91 and 85 of the transfer of property act.3. these sections were apparently not considered when i.l.r. 24 m. 296 was decided.