High Court Kerala High Court

Sivasankaran Nair vs Santhakumari on 8 January, 2010

Kerala High Court
Sivasankaran Nair vs Santhakumari on 8 January, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

AS.No. 30 of 1999(B)



1. SIVASANKARAN NAIR
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. SANTHAKUMARI
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.SUBRAMANIAM

                For Respondent  :SRI.V.C.JAMES

The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN

 Dated :08/01/2010

 O R D E R

KURIAN JOSEPH & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ.

——————————————————————

AS No.30 of 1999

——————————————————————

Dated 8th January 2010

Judgment

Bhavadasan, J.

The second defendant in OS No.907/94 before the Sub

Court, Thrissur, is the appellant. He suffered a mortgage

decree. The parties and facts are hereinafter referred to, as

they are available before the Court below.

2. In the light of the scope of this appeal, the facts which

are absolutely necessary for its disposal alone are being

referred to in this Judgment. The suit was based on Ext.A1

mortgage deed dated 07.10.1982. The first defendant was the

mortgager. The second defendant purchased the rights of the

first defendant. The contention of the second defendant in the

suit was that he had discharged the debt. However, he failed to

prove his contention before the Court below and the suit was

decreed. Hence this Appeal.

AS 30/99 2

3. The learned counsel for the appellant stressed only

one aspect for consideration. It was pointed out that the

pendente lite interest and the future interest are considerably

high and some leniency should be shown in this regard.

4. It is true that a reading of the mortgage deed shows

that the mortgager had agreed to repay the mortgage amount

with 18% interest. But, it is well settled that pendente lite

interest and future interest are within the discretion of the

Court. Normally, pendente lite interest is given at the

contractual rate. But, considering the facts and circumstances

of this case, we feel that a departure needs to be made in this

case. We are satisfied that the pendente lite interest of 12%

and future interest of 6% will meet the ends of justice. In the

result, the decree of the Court below is modified as follows :

5. The plaintiff is given a decree for Rs.1,22,562/- with

interest @ 12% for the principal sum of Rs.15,000/- from the

date of suit till the date of decree and future interest @ 6% till

the date of realisation of the amount with costs against the first

AS 30/99 3

defendant and also by the sale of plaint schedule mortgaged

property. Three months’ time is granted to make the payment.

The Appeal is partly allowed as above.





                                  KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE




                                  P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE



sta

AS 30/99    4