Allowed

State of Kerala v. K.v.Gopinathan Nair

Kerala HC2 Jun 2011CRP/882/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision petition, the High Court of Kerala set aside the executing court's order directing the judgment debtor to deposit a sum that included interest on solatium. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that since the decree specifically denied interest on solatium, the decree holder could not claim it.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 15/03/2000 in E.P.76/2000 set aside; decree holder not entitled to interest on solatium; parties to file fresh calculation statements.

State of Kerala Vs K.v.Gopinathan Nair — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2011 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶4

CRP.No. 882 of 2008

¶5

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15/03/2000 IN EP.76/2000 IN LAR.24/1997 OF SUB COURT, PALA

¶6

REVN. PETITIONER: JUDGMENT DEBTOR

¶7

-----------------------------------STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM.

¶8

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.SAJEEV

¶9

RESPONDENT: DECREE HOLDER

¶10

---------------------------K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR, KAVUNGUMPALLIL, PULIYANNOOR KARA, KAVUNGUMPALLIL VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS

¶12

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶14

-----------------------------------------------------C.R.P. NO. 882 OF 2008

¶15

Dated this the 2^nd day of June, 2011

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The respondent is the decree holder in L.A.R.No.24 of 1997 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Pala. He filed E.P.No.76 of 2000 to execute the decree. Both the parties filed statement as to the balance amount due to the decree holder. The executing court accepted the statement filed by the decree holder. Accordingly, the judgment debtor was directed to deposit the balance decree amount of `50,930/- within two months. That order is under challenge in this Revision filed by the judgment debtor.

¶18

The learned Government Pleader appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that as per the decree in the Land Acquisition Reference, interest on solatium was specifically denied and therefore, the executing court was not justified in granting an order for realization of interest on solatium. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the amount now directed to be recovered from the judgment debtor includes interest on solatium as well. This

¶19

C.R.P. NO.882 OF 2008

¶20

:: 2 ::

¶21

statement is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. There is also no dispute that interest on solatium was specifically denied as per the decree. The learned Government Pleader also submitted that there are other mistakes in the calculation.

¶22

The learned counsel appearing for the decree holder submitted that if interest on solatium is to be deducted, the parties may be afforded an opportunity to file a fresh calculation statement claiming interest up-to-date on the balance amount.

¶23

Going by the decisions of the Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India ((2006) 8 SCC 457) and Collector, Land Acquisition and another v. Jaswant Singh and others ((2008) 12 SCC 745), the decree holder would not be entitled to claim interest on solatium since it was specifically disallowed as per the decree. Therefore, the executing court was not justified in directing recovery of amounts including interest on solatium.

¶24

For the aforesaid reasons, the order passed by the executing court is set aside. The respondent/decree holder is not

¶25

C.R.P. NO.882 OF 2008

¶26

:: 3 ::

¶27

entitled to interest on solatium. Both parties would be entitled to file calculation statement. The decree holder would be entitled to interest on the balance amount till the date of realization. Parties shall appear before the executing court on 27.6.2011.

¶28

The Civil Revision Petition is allowed as above.

¶29

(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge

¶30

ahz/

State of Kerala v. K.v.Gopinathan Nair

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala v. K.v.Gopinathan Nair

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

E.Munirathanam Vs State of Kerala

Nissam Vs State of Kerala

Viju.E.B Vs a.P.M.Mohammed Hanish

Abdu @ Abdulsamad K.A. Vs State of Kerala

Vijesh Vs State of Kerala

R. Sreekumar Vs Murugan