Karnataka High Court
K S Srinivasaiah S/O K M Shankaraiah vs Munivenkatamma W/O S Muniyappa on 15 March, 2010
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
E RSA 184309
IN THE HiGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE-'--.__
DATED THIS THE 15" DAY OF MARCH 201
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MRJUSTECE ANANB' gm.oAgoAaAy%e
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL N61;18?i5f20O9--{S£>:i
BETWEEN:
I. K.S.Sr:'nivasaiah, _
S/o K.M.Shankaraiah', 5
Aged about 60 years. ' ' '
2. R.Radhamma,.-1'
W/o iate K.S§Ba;?naoha'nd§'ai'ah?_' V "
Both :arAe}~esidiA'g21'at::%V :1"
MaIlanay.akanahaIi'i"Road, E
Muibagal Town V-3 563-._ 'E :4'.
Kofar {)}strict;" .. ' .../Appeilams
A(BysmrwAxéorayana Reddy, Advocate)
E\z!univeri'$»:ataVmn'aEi,
-A «WYQ S.Mur':Eya:ppa,
' A'ge=.{o* about 55 years,
A '§~?iésEd~.ing"'at Mothyaipet,
M;.zIbag'aiE Town -- 563 131.
h '~Koia:f_?District. ...Respondent
4 RSA 1845;"O9 of the agreement within the time fixed. The defendants apparentty have not taken any steps to terminate the contract or ctaim that there was a breach of contract. in this View otthpe matter, the piea, that the Courts betow were requéredfil.VtretatV"~ V. the time as being of essence of contract is not a 'sLi:bsta»nVtia%ti' question of taw that wouid arise for consvideratio.n}«._H-sneer, _tE}e're is no substantiat question of Tiaw tit;-at:"-.wou|d:.t"_t'artse Consideration. The Appeal is rejectedst dh