IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RSA.No. 387 of 2009()
1. RUGMANI W/O. VASUDEVAN,
... Petitioner
2. HARINARAYANAN S/O. VASUDEVAN,
Vs
1. M.SASIKUMAR S/O. MEENAKSHI AMMA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.A.R.GANGADAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :03/07/2009
O R D E R
HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.
---------------------------
R.S.A.NO.387 OF 2009
---------------------------
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2009
JUDGMENT
Appellants are defendants in O.S.No.157/99 on the file
of the Sub Court, Palakkad. This appeal is directed against the
judgment and decree in A.S.No.215/2004 on the file of the Ist
Additional District Court, Palakkad. The suit was filed for
recovery of the advance amount. The trial court decreed the suit
which was confirmed in appeal. Hence this Second Appeal.
2. The defendants executed an agreement for sale
agreeing to sell an extent of 60 cents of land in Sy.No.95/6 at the
rate of Rs.9,000/- per cent. The agreement is dated 6/5/1996. An
amount of Rs.10,000/- was given as advance sale consideration.
Subsequently, Rs.25,000/- each was paid on 10/7/1996,
10/8/1996 and 8/8/1996. It is further alleged that the defendants
failed to execute the sale deed as agreed. Therefore, the plaintiff
-2-
R.S.A.No.387/2009
is not interested in applying for specific performance of the
agreement. The suit was filed stating that he is entitled for refund
of the advance sale consideration.
3. The defendants denied the contentions of the plaintiff
and prayed for dismissal of the suit stating that the plaintiff is
responsible for the breach of contract. The trial court considered
the oral evidence of PW-1 and Exts.A1 to A7, and Ext.B1. The
trial court on examination of the evidence on record, the
circumstances and probabilities, concluded that the defendants
have committed breach of Ext.A1 agreement. Therefore, the trial
court passed a decree permitting the plaintiff to realise the
amount advanced with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The
Appellate Court also considered the very same contentions raised
by the defendants and agreed with the findings of the trial court.
The findings are arrived at purely based on evidence, facts and
circumstances and probabilities. I fully agree with the findings
entered by the court below. I find that there is no scope for
-3-
R.S.A.No.387/2009
invoking jurisdiction under Section 100 of C.P.C. No question of
law much less any substantial question of law arises for
consideration.
In the result, the appeal fails and it is accordingly
dismissed in limine.
HARUN-UL-RASHID,
Judge.
kcv.