Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 22 (KER)

Suja Rajendran v. Jalaludeen

2025-01-07

A.BADHARUDEEN

body2025
JUDGMENT : A. Badharudeen, J. Defendant in O.S.No.190/2010 on the files of the Sub Court, Attingal, assails decree and judgment, dated 29.3.2014 in the above suit, in this appeal filed under Section 96 r/w Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the C.P.C.’ hereinafter). The respondent is the sole plaintiff in the suit. 2. The parties in this appeal shall be referred as 'plaintiff' and 'defendant' for brevity and convenience, hereafter. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the defendant/appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/respondent. 4. Summary of the case: Plaintiff filed the suit seeking realisation of Rs.13,50,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakh Fifty Thousand only) from the defendant contending that the plaintiff paid the said amount on three occasions starting from 8.7.2009, towards advance sale consideration. The case of the plaintiff is that, the defendant agreed to sell 15 cents of property of Anupama and Anuja, who are the minor children of the defendant along with 3 cents of pathway to be purchased from one Lalitha, at the rate of Rs.1,60,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Thousand only) per cent. On the date of execution of the agreement for sale, Rs.3 Lakh was paid as advance. Thereafter, Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) more was given as advance sale consideration on 12.8.2009 and Rs.10 Lakh on 31.8.2009, for which, another receipt also was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, since the defendant failed to execute the sale deed, after obtaining permission of the District Court to sell the property of the minors and also failed to provide a pathway, as agreed upon, the contract failed to be performed by the defendant, though the plaintiff was ready to perform his part of contract. On this premise, the plaintiff sought the relief to get back the advance amount along with the interest. 5. Sole defendant entered appearance and filed written statement. Defendant denied execution of sale agreement as on 8.7.2009. The contents of Ext.A1 also was denied. According to the defendant, defendant borrowed Rs.3 Lakh from the plaintiff and executed a document styled in the form of an agreement of sale on 8.7.2009. On the date of execution of the agreement, the defendant gave a signed blank white paper to the plaintiff. The plaintiff fraudulently created a receipt, dated 31.8.2009 in the said signed blank white paper. According to the defendant, defendant borrowed Rs.3 Lakh from the plaintiff and executed a document styled in the form of an agreement of sale on 8.7.2009. On the date of execution of the agreement, the defendant gave a signed blank white paper to the plaintiff. The plaintiff fraudulently created a receipt, dated 31.8.2009 in the said signed blank white paper. Accordingly, receipt of Rs.3 Lakh admitted, while denying receipt of Rs.13,50,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakh Fifty Thousand only). 6. The trial court raised appropriate issues and tried the case. PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exts.A1 and A4 were marked on the side of the plaintiff. Defendant was examined as DW1. 7. On appreciation of evidence, the trial court granted decree as under: “In the result, suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay an amount of Rs.14,71,500/- (Rupees Fourteen lakhs Seventy one thousand and five hundred only) together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.13,50,000/- from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till realization.” 8. While assailing the verdict of the trial court, the learned counsel for the defendant raised a contention that either in Ext.A1 agreement or in Ext.A2 receipt, there was no covenant to pay interest for the amount received and therefore, grant of 12% interest per annum on the principal amount by the trial court from the date of suit till the date of decree and grant of 6% interest per annum from the date of decree till realisation, is not legally permissible. Secondly, it is argued by the learned counsel for the defendant that, as regards receipt of Rs.10,50,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Fifty Thousand only), the defendant specifically denied the same and therefore, grant of decree for the said sum is erroneous and the same would require interference. 9. The learned counsel for the plaintiff strongly supported the verdict after reading the deposition of DW1 practically admitting execution of Ext.A1 and acceptance of Rs.3 Lakh on agreeing to sell the property in favour of the plaintiff. 10. 9. The learned counsel for the plaintiff strongly supported the verdict after reading the deposition of DW1 practically admitting execution of Ext.A1 and acceptance of Rs.3 Lakh on agreeing to sell the property in favour of the plaintiff. 10. In view of the rival contentions, the points to be decided are: 1) Whether the finding of the trial court that the plaintiff is entitled to get Rs.14,71,500/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakh Seventy One Thousand and Five Hundred only) based on Exts.A1 and A2 is erroneous and the same would require interference? 2) Whether in a suit for money based on a contract, when the suit document does not provide for interest, whether the court is empowered to grant interest as per law? 3) When the plaint is silent about the rate of interest, whether the court is powerless in granting interest at a specified rate? 4) What is the impact of Section 34 of the C.P.C.? 5) Reliefs and costs. 11. In the instant case, the specific case of the plaintiff is that, the defendant agreed to sell 15 cents of property owned by her minor children along with 3 cents of pathway to be purchased from one Lalitha, for a consideration of Rs.1,60,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Thousand only) per cent. Accordingly, agreement was executed on 8.7.2009 and the original of the same is Ext.A1. Further case of the plaintiff is that, on the date of execution of the agreement for sale, Rs.3 Lakh was paid as advance. Thereafter, on 12.8.2009, the defendant received Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) as advance sale consideration and also received Rs.10 Lakh on 31.8.2009. Thereafter, the defendant failed to obtain sanction from the District Court for selling the property of the minors and also failed to provide the pathway, as agreed. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to get Rs.13,50,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakh Fifty Thousand only), paid as part consideration. 12. The defendant, in her written statement, denied execution of Ext.A1 on one hand and on the other hand, admitted its execution for the purpose of borrowing Rs.3 Lakh from the plaintiff. When the defendant was examined before the court as DW1, she practically admitted Ext.A1 and also the covenant therein to purchase 3 cents of pathway from one Lalitha. She also admitted purchase of property by her on 31.8.2009, the date on which Rs.10 Lakh was advanced by the plaintiff. When the defendant was examined before the court as DW1, she practically admitted Ext.A1 and also the covenant therein to purchase 3 cents of pathway from one Lalitha. She also admitted purchase of property by her on 31.8.2009, the date on which Rs.10 Lakh was advanced by the plaintiff. Even though PW1, who had given evidence in support of plaint averments, was cross examined, nothing extracted to disbelieve his version in the matter of Ext.A1 agreement and Ext.A2 receipt for Rs.10,50,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Fifty Thousand only). Apart from PW1, PW2, the attestor to Exts.A1 and A2, also supported the execution of Ext.A1 agreement and the evidence of PW2 also not shaken during cross examination. 13. It is true that, as far as Ext.A2 is concerned, the defendant raised a contention that the same was prepared in a signed blank white paper issued by the defendant on the date of execution of Ext.A1. In the written statement as well as in the deposition of DW1, the specific case of the defendant is that, she had issued a signed blank white paper. However, no explanation from DW1, why and on what circumstances such a signed blank white paper was issued. On perusal of Ext.A2, it appears that signature in Ext.A2 is not in a blank signed paper, but it is one put on a revenue stamp overlapping the paper where the revenue stamp was affixed. Going by the evidence of PW1 and PW2, the case of the plaintiff insofar as payment of Rs.3 lakh on 8.7.2009, Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) on 12.8.2009 and Rs.10 Lakh on 31.8.2009 altogether, stands proved. Therefore, the trial court rightly found that the plaintiff is entitled to get the said amount. 14. Coming to points Nos.2 to 4, the plaintiff had not specifically asked for any interest and the prayer was to grant decree for the suit amount “with further interest”. According to the learned counsel for the defendant, since interest is not specifically asked in the plaint, and there is nothing in the suit documents regarding grant of interest, no interest is entitled by the plaintiff. 15. In this connection, it is relevant to refer Section 34(1) of the C.P.C. which provides as under: 34. According to the learned counsel for the defendant, since interest is not specifically asked in the plaint, and there is nothing in the suit documents regarding grant of interest, no interest is entitled by the plaintiff. 15. In this connection, it is relevant to refer Section 34(1) of the C.P.C. which provides as under: 34. Interest.— (1) Where and in so far as a decree is for the payment of money, the Court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to the institution of the suit, with further interest at such rate not exceeding six per cent per annum as the Court deems reasonable on such principal sum, from the date of the decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit. Provided that where the liability in relation to the sum so adjudged had arisen out of a commercial transaction, the rate of such further interest may exceed six per cent per annum, but shall not exceed the contractual rate of interest or where there is no contractual rate, the rate at which moneys are lent or advanced by nationalised banks in relation to commercial transactions. Explanation I.—In this subsection, “nationalised bank” means a corresponding new bank as defined in the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970). Explanation II.—For the purposes of this section, a transaction is a commercial transaction, if it is connected with the industry, trade or business of the party incurring the liability. 16. On a bare reading of Section 34(1) of the C.P.C., it is specifically clear that, insofar as a decree for payment of money is concerned, the Court has the discretion to order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to the institution of the suit. Insofar as interest from the date of decree till realisation is concerned, the same is one not exceeding 6% per annum till date of payment. Insofar as interest from the date of decree till realisation is concerned, the same is one not exceeding 6% per annum till date of payment. It is true that in cases involving commercial transactions, the rate of such further interest may exceed 6%, in terms of the contract. 17. Thus, it appears that, in the instant case, the plaintiff prayed to grant the suit amount “with further interest”. Section 34 of the C.P.C. provides grant of interest in between the filing of the suit and the date of decree at the discretion of the court and further interest not exceeding 6% from the date of decree till date of realisation. Therefore, in view of Section 34 of the C.P.C., even though in a suit for money, the suit document does not provide any interest, the court has the discretion to grant the same by invoking power under Section 34 of the C.P.C. Similar is the position when the plaint is silent regarding the percentage of interest by claiming the suit amount with further interest and in such cases also, by resorting to Section 34 of the C.P.C., the court can grant interest, specifying its rate. But, when a specific rate of interest is claimed, the court need not grant interest in excess of what has been claimed. Therefore, points Nos.2 to 4 answered, holding that the trial court rightly granted interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and further interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till realisation. 18. On re-appreciation of evidence, this Court could not find any anomaly in the verdict of the trial court and therefore, no interference in the trial court verdict is called for. Thus, this appeal is liable to fail. Point No.1 answered accordingly. 19. Point No.5 Since the suit is for realisation of money, there is no reason to disallow cost of the proceedings to be realised from the defendant. Accordingly, cost also granted in favour of the plaintiff throughout the proceedings, to be realised from the defendant. In the result, this appeal is dismissed with cost of the plaintiff throughout the proceedings to be realised from the defendant. All interlocutory applications pending in this appeal, stand dismissed. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the trial court, forthwith.