Partly allowed

K.P.Prabhakaran v. Ooramkunnummal Chandran

Kerala HC24 Jan 2011CRP/37/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court modified an order allowing rescission of an agreement for sale. Finding it just and proper, the High Court directed respondents to pay an additional sum of two lakhs with the ten lakhs already directed, and allowed withdrawal of the already deposited amount.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents to pay an additional sum of Rupees Two Lakhs within two months and allow withdrawal of the sum already deposited.

K.P.Prabhakaran Vs Ooramkunnummal Chandran — Specific Performance | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2011 / 4TH MAGHA 1932

¶5

CRP.No. 37 of 2011

¶6

AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 24.11.2010 IN I.A.NO.1009/2009 AND I.A.NO.429/2010 IN O.S.NO.54/2007 OF SUB COURT, QUILANDY

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶8

K.P.PRABHAKARAN, S/O. RAMA KURUP,

¶9

AGED 55 YEARS, 'SWAPNA', P.O.VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS. M/S.C.VATHSALAN, K.RAKESH ROSHAN

¶11

AND THUSHARA.V

¶12

RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

¶13

OORAMKUNNUMMAL CHANDRAN, S/O. GOPALAN, AGED 54 YEARS, BUSINESS, VIYYUR AMSOM, KOLLAM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOYILANDY P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN 673 305.

¶14

OORAMKUNNUMMAL SHYLAJA, D/O. GOPALAN, VIYYUR AMSOM, KOLLAM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOYILANDY P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN 673 305.

¶15

OORAMKUNNUMMAL HARIDASAN, S/O. GOPALAN, BUSINESS, VIYYUR AMSOM, KOLLAM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOYILANDY P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN 673 305.

¶16

OORAMKUNNUMMAL RAMESAN, S/O. GOPALAN, BUSINESS, VIYYUR AMSOM, KOLLAM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOYILANDY P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN 673 305.

¶17

OORAMKUNNUMMAL MOHANAN, S/O. GOPALAN, BUSINESS, VIYYUR AMSOM, KOLLAM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOYILANDY.P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN 673 305.

¶18

OORAMKUNNUMMAL MANOJ, S/O. GOPALAN, BUSINESS, VIYYUR AMSOM, KOLLAM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOYILANDY P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN 673 305.

¶19

C.R.P.NO.37 OF 2011

¶20

:: 2 ::

¶21

OORAMKUNNUMMAL SREELATHA, D/O. GOPALAN, BUSINESS, VIYYUR AMSOM, KOLLAM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOYILANDY P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN 673 305.

¶22

OORAMKUNNUMMAL ANILKUMAR, S/O. GOPALAN, BUSINESS, VIYYUR AMSOM, KOLLAM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOYILANDY P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN 673 305.

¶23

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶25

-----------------------------------------------------C.R.P. NO. 37 OF 2011

¶26

Dated this the 24^th day of January, 2011

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

This Revision is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.54 of 2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Koyilandy, challenging the order dated 24.11.2010 passed by the court below allowing the application filed by the respondents to rescind the agreement for sale dated 18.12.2006.

¶29

The petitioner filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale. The suit was decreed on 22.8.2008 directing the defendants to execute the assignment deed in favour of the plaintiff after receiving the balance consideration. As per the decree, the balance consideration was to be paid on or before 21.9.2008. The plaintiff filed a petition for extension of time. Time was extended till 22.10.2008. However, the plaintiff did not deposit the amount within that time.

¶30

The defendants filed I.A.No.1009 of 2009 to rescind the

¶31

C.R.P. NO. 37 OF 2011

¶32

:: 2 ::

¶33

contract. The plaintiff filed I.A.No.429 of 2010 to extent the time for paying the balance amount in terms of the decree. The court below considered both these applications together. As per the common order dated 24.11.2010, the court below dismissed I.A.No.429 of 2010 and allowed I.A.No.1009 of 2009 and the contract was rescinded. However, the court below directed the defendants to deposit the advance amount received by them under the agreement, within a period of fifteen days. It is stated in the order that if the defendants failed to deposit the amount within the stipulated time, the amount will carry interest at 12% per annum.

¶34

The court below found that there was no justification for extending the time for deposit. It was also held that the defendants were justified in applying for rescission of the contract. The facts and circumstances of the case were considered in detail by the court below.

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the advance amount was 10 lakhs. The plaintiff paid more than 8 lakhs as court fee. The total consideration agreed upon was

¶36

C.R.P. NO. 37 OF 2011

¶37

:: 3 ::

¶38

`72,89,000/-. It is submitted that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the court below should have at least directed the defendants to pay interest on the advance amount.

¶39

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is only just and proper to direct the defendants to pay reasonable interest on the advance amount to the plaintiff. I think it would be just and proper to direct them to pay a sum of Rupees Two lakhs in addition to the sum of Rupees Ten lakhs ordered to be paid by the order impugned. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that a sum of Rupees Ten lakhs was deposited by the defendants.

¶40

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of as follows:

¶41

a) In addition to the sum of Rupees Ten lakhs directed to be deposited by the respondents/defendants, they shall pay a sum of Rupees Two lakhs to the petitioner/plaintiff within a period of two months from today.

¶42

C.R.P. NO. 37 OF 2011

¶43

:: 4 ::

¶44

b) The amount already deposited by the respondents/defendants

¶45

shall be allowed to be withdrawn by the petitioner/plaintiff.

¶46

c) The order passed by the court below is modified to the above extent and it is confirmed for the rest.

¶47

(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge

¶48

ahz/

K.P.Prabhakaran v. Ooramkunnummal Chandran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.P.Prabhakaran v. Ooramkunnummal Chandran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. Krishna Ben K.Patel & Ors. Vs Natwarlal P. Patel

R.Anandakumar Vs Raveendran

Krishnan Nair and Another Vs Muhammed Khaneefa

K.S.E.Board Vs Kalliyani

K.S.E.B. Vs Souja

Augustikunju Vs Johny and 3 Others