Partly allowed

Pazhanivelu v. Muthukrishnan

Kerala HC7 Feb 2022RFA/484/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal in part, modifying the trial court decree to award Rs. 50,000 as reasonable compensation under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act for failure to perform the contract, reducing the repayable advance to Rs. 2,50,000.

What did the court decide?

Decree modified to allow recovery of Rs. 2,50,000 with 6% annual interest from date of suit; Rs. 50,000 awarded as reasonable compensation.

Pazhanivelu Vs Muthukrishnan — Specific Performance | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 7^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 18TH MAGHA, 1943

¶5

RFA NO. 484 OF 2016 (I)

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.03.2016 IN OS No. 682/2011

¶7

OF ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, PALAKKAD

¶8

APPELLANT/DEFENDANT:

¶9

PAZHANIVELU, AGED 65 YEARS, S/o KARUPPASWAMY, CHAITHANYA HOUSE, SASTRI NAGAR, KANJIKODE WEST, PUDUSSERY AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN (SR.) SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER

¶11

SRI.P.RAHUL

¶12

RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:

¶13

MUTHUKRISHNAN, AGED 60 YEARS, S/o ARU, CHALLAKKAD HOUSE, PUDUSSERY AMSOM, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678 001.

¶14

BY ADVS. C.K.JAYAKUMAR E.SHEENA

¶15

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 07.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

RFA No.484 of 2016

JUDGMENT

The non-consideration of entitlement of reasonable

¶20

compensation under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act by the trial court while decreeing return of the advance amount in a contract for sale of an immovable property was taken up by the defendant before this court by relying on the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in

¶21

Micheal v. Sebastian and others [2017 (4) KHC 52 (DB)] and the Apex Court in Fetch Chand v. Balkishan Dass [AIR 1963 SC 1405] .

¶22

The trial court found that it is due to the default on the part of the plaintiff, the contract could not be performed by answering issue Nos.1 and 2, against which nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court to interfere with. Since the legal position has been settled regarding entitlement of reasonable compensation in the absence of pre-estimate or pre-quantification of damages by

¶23

the act of parties included in the contract for sale, it is

¶24

proper to award reasonable compensation by taking into consideration the amount received by way of advance, which

¶25

RFA No.484 of 2016 3

¶26

comes to Rs.3,00,000/- and all other attending circumstances and the amount can be fixed at Rs.50,000/(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) as reasonable compensation, which can be deducted from the advance received. Hence, the decree and judgment of the trial court will stand modified allowing recovery of an amount of Rs.2,50,000/(Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization with proportionate cost of appeal.

¶27

The appeal is allowed in part accordingly.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

DMR/-

Pazhanivelu v. Muthukrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pazhanivelu v. Muthukrishnan

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

Kaitholi Benni Vs Kidangazhi Manakkal Narayanan Namboodiri(died)

Thottathil Kalliani Vs Thottathil Kunhikannan Nair

Rukmani Vs Rajamma

Mohandas Vs Sarju

Abhimanue Vs Mohandas T.S. @ Mohandasan

Ambika @ Thankamunni Vs K.Ramadevi