No AI summary yet for this case.
- 1 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5095-DB RFA No. 364 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.364 OF 2011 (MON)
BETWEEN:
SRI. K. THOMAS S/O LATE K.C. KURIAN AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
[APPELLANT DIED ON 24.07.2011 APPELLANT NO.2 AND 3 LR'S THEREFORE CAUSE TITLE IS AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 10.09.2012]
SMT. ANNIE THOMAS W/O SRI. K. THOMAS AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
SRI. K. KURIAN THOMAS S/O K. THOMAS AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
M/S. THOMASONS A PARINENTSHIP FIRM BY ITS PARTNERS APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 3
APPELLANTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR G.P.A HOLDER K. THOMAS THE APPELLANT NO.1 HEREIN
Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: High Court of Karnataka
- 2 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5095-DB RFA No. 364 of 2011
ALL ARE RESIDENT OF: "WOOD HOUSE"
NO.2, MADRAS BANK ROAD BANGALORE-560 001
…APPELLANTS (BY SRI. AJAY GURUDATT FOR SRI. A.B. KUMARASWAMY, SENIOR ADVOCATES)
AND:
SMT. U. SARASWATHI W/O ULAGAPPAN AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT NO.40, MAHADEVAN STREET WEST MAMBALAM CHENNAI-600 033 TAMIL NADU
…RESPONDENT (BY SMT. S.A. HEENA FOR SRI. SHIVA KUMAR GOGI, ADVOCATES)
THIS RFA IS FILED U/S 96, OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.12.2010 PASSED IN O.S.91/1998 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MADIKERI, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF THIS DAY, RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR J., DELIVERED/PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
- 3 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5095-DB RFA No. 364 of 2011
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3.12.2010 passed by the Sr.Civil Judge, Madikeri in OS No.91/1998. By virtue of this decree, the learned trial Court decreed the suit in part with proportionate cost holding defendant nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/-(2 crores) together with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of its realization. 2. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, now the defendant nos. 2 to 4 are in appeal. Defendant no.1 died during the pendency of this appeal and accordingly cause title of the appeal memo came to be amended.
- 4 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5095-DB RFA No. 364 of 2011
The factual matrix as set out by the plaintiff in the plaint in brief are as under:
That, plaintiff filed suit against defendants to direct them to pay a sum of Rs.2,60,75,852.31 together with future interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the date of suit till realization and also create charge over the suit schedule properties and the standing crop therein till the recovery of the decretal amount with cost on the ground that defendants represented the plaintiff that they are the owners of 250 acres of coffee plantation and as plaintiff's husband and herself wanted to purchase the same, the defendants offered the plaintiffs to purchase the same, therefore, plaintiffs agreed to purchase the said coffee plantations more fully described in the schedule appended to the plaint for a valuable consideration of Rs.4,30,76,000/-. It is stated that out of the said consideration amount, plaintiff paid Rs.19,15,000.00 on the date of agreements dated 11.03.1998 by way of a
- 5 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5095-DB RFA No. 364 of 2011
demand draft and agreed to pay Rs.1,34,00,000/- on or before 18.3.1998 so also agreed to pay the balance consideration amount of Rs.2,77,61,000/- at the time of execution of the sale deed. The plaintiff has also paid Rs.5,85,000/- by way of demand draft on 10.3.1998 drawn on Indian Bank, SB, Bengaluru, Rs.21,00,000/- under three separate demand drafts of Rs.7 lakhs each on 12.3.1998 drawn on the then State Bank of Mysuru, Bengaluru Branch so also has paid Rs.19,98,500/- by way of another demand draft on 16.3.1998 drawn on Indus Bank Ltd., Bengaluru. She also agreed to purchase suit schedule property on the same day and has paid Rs.5,85,000/- as advance towards part of sale consideration amount by way of demand draft drawn on Indus Bank dated 19.3.1998. So also, agreed to pay Rs.41,00,000/- on or before 18.3.1998 and remaining balance amount of Rs.84,89,000/- was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. She also paid Rs.21,00,000/- under different demand drafts of Rs.7 lakhs each on 12.3.1998 and Rs.19,98,500/- by demand
- 6 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5095-DB RFA No. 364 of 2011
draft on 16.3.1998. The defendants have received the said consideration amount which was paid by the plaintiffs through various demand draft stated supra. 4. The defendants agreed to execute the sale deed on or before 11.07.1998 subject to the conditions mentioned in the agreement. It is alleged that, the defendants committed breach of a contract and failed to perform their part of the contract and hence plaintiff is entitled for refund of the said amount so paid because of breach of a contract together with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the date of payment till its realization. Even the plaintiff is entitled for cost of the suit. 5. It is alleged by the plaintiff that these defendants misrepresented plaintiff and her husband that they are the owners of entire 250 acres of land, in fact it is not so. Though the plaintiff requested the defendants to provide authenticated or attested copies of title deeds of the suit schedule properties they did not provide. The plaintiff has spent substantial money towards
- 7 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5095-DB RFA No. 364 of 2011
improvements of the suit schedule properties on the hope that defendants would execute the sale deed as per the agreement of sale. But, they went on postponing the same and have not provided authenticated copy of the original title deeds and thus there is failure of the defendants to comply the contents of the agreement and failed to perform their obligation. It is alleged that for the first time, defendant no.1 addressed a letter dated 19.6.1998 making false allegations that one Sri K.P.Balasubramanya, Advocate of the plaintiff has misrepresented. It is stated that in the presence of the said Advocate and witnesses Thimmaiah and Krishnappa, certain title deeds and connected papers were handed over to the Advocate of the plaintiff on the guise of preparing the final document but, those documents are not legible and understandable. On enquiry plaintiffs came to know that the schedule properties are the granted lands and these defendants have no title to execute the sale deed in respect of the same. Thus, defendants lack bonafides on their part in representing to the plaintiff that they are the owners of
- 8 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5095-DB RFA No. 364 of 2011
suit schedule property. Even the husband of the plaintiff received a letter dated 25.06.1998 sent by defendants, signed by defendant no.1 and stated that they have got the photocopies of the title deeds which are sent along with the letter but, those documents were not visible and legible. Thus, it is alleged these defendants committed breach of contract and addressed false and frivolous letters pointing mistake on the part of plaintiff's advocate. The documents so made available to the plaintiff reveal that defendant no.1 had instrument called as a partnership firm dated 19.8.1995 and provide a capital of Rs.3,30,016.96 towards the capital of the firm `Thomsons' and joined as 9th partner of the firm along with other eight partners with two shares. Thus, he has suppressed the factum of this agreement of sale while entering the partnership firm but, wrote a false letter. Therefore, as there is a breach of agreement by the defendants, the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim along with the cost of improvement of Rs.13,58,315.08 which has been spent by
- 9 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5095-DB RFA No. 364 of 2011
her towards upkeep, maintenance and improvements of Schedule A and B properties. 6. Pursuant to the suit summons defendants appeared and resisted the suit of the plaintiff by filing detailed written statement. They admit the execution of agreement of sale but, denies all other assertions so made in the plaint. According to them, they are not liable to pay any amount much less claimed in the plaint. 7. They contend that they are the owners in possession of the A and B schedule properties wherein the coffee crop is grown. According to defendant no.1, he is PA holder of def.2 and 3. So far as expressing their intention to sell the suit schedule properties and plaintiff came forward to purchase the schedule properties, this fact is admitted by the defendants. According to defendants, defendant nos. 1 to 3 are the partners of defendant no.4 and are the owners of A schedule properties. According to them, B schedule properties were never owned as partnership properties and they were owned individually
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5095-DB RFA No. 364 of 2011
by them having purchased the same under different sale deeds. Further it is contended that for the purpose of convenience of the management, they formed the partnership firm in the name of defendant no.4 in respect of plaint schedule A property only. They desire to sell both the properties in the month of January 1998 and plaintiff approached defendant no.1 through brokers by name Krishnappa and D.C.Thimmaiah at Airlines Hotel, Bengaluru i.e. on 25.1.1998. In the presence of the said brokers, an offer was made to buy the schedule properties and after thorough discussion, they agreed to purchase the same for a valuable consideration of Rs.4,30,76,000/- in respect of A schedule properties and for Rs.1,31,74,000/- in respect of B schedule properties. The defendants agreed for the same and on negotiation between both with regard to consideration amount, in respect of A schedule properties, plaintiff gave a demand draft for Rs.19,15,000/- and in respect of B Schedule gave a demand draft to defendants 1 and 3 knowing fully well about the properties. They entered into separate two
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5095-DB RFA No. 364 of 2011
agreements in respect of A and B schedule properties on 11.03.1998 after fully satisfying about the same. Therefore, it is contended that plaintiff cannot question title of the defendants and occasion to suspect the title never arose. As per the said sale agreements, the registration of the sale deed was scheduled on or before 11.7.1998 and the plaintiff was under obligation to furnish the draft sale deeds on or before 11.5.1998 to the defendants so as to enable the defendants to get clearance from the Dept. of Income Tax. Even the defendants were also under obligation to make available the title deeds in respect of the schedule properties for inspection to the plaintiffs on or before 11.4.1998 and must keep the schedule properties clear of all properties free of all encumbrances and also settle the accounts of their employees so also to vacate the labour quarters on or before 11.06.1998. It is further contended that, the defendants agreed to perform their part of contract well in advance and plaintiff was entitled to obtain execution and registration of sale deed by paying balance consideration
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5095-DB RFA No. 364 of 2011
amount. It is contended that, it is plaintiff who failed to perform her part of the contract and has falsely made allegations that, defendants have committed breach of contract without any basis. Therefore, claim of plaintiff 24% on the said amount and also damages is a false claim and even plaintiff is not entitled for any damages as claimed. The allegations made in the plaint are specifically denied by defendants in toto. It was failure on the part of the plaintiff to perform her part of the contract; therefore, she is not entitled for any relief. Therefore, it is prayed by the defendants to dismiss the suit with costs. 8. Based upon the rival pleadings of both the parties, the learned trial Court settled in all 7 issues and 1 addl. issue. They read as under: 1) “Whether the plaintiff proves that, the defendants have failed to perform their part of contracts as per the terms and conditions of the suit agreements and she was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract?
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5095-DB RFA No. 364 of 2011
2) Whether the plaintiff proves that she is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.2,60,75,852.31/- as on 31.08.1998 from the defendants?
3) Whether the defendants prove that they have not committed any breach of agreements jointly or severally and plaintiff has cancelled the agreement unilaterally?
4) Whether the defendants prove that they are entitled to withdraw from the agreement and forfeit sum of Rs.5,85,000/- and Rs.19,15,000/- and to refund the further sums received by them?
5) Whether the defendants prove that suit is not properly valued and court-fee paid is insufficient?
6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought for?
7) What order or decree?”
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5095-DB RFA No. 364 of 2011
To prove the case of the plaintiff, she herself entered the witness box as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P159 and closed plaintiff’s evidence. To rebut the evidence of the plaintiff, defendant No.1 entered the witness box as DW1 and got marked D1 to D8 and closed defendant’s evidence. 10. The learned trial Court on hearing the arguments of both the side and on perusal of materials on record, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs with proportionate cost as noted above. This is how, now the defendants are before this Court questioning the impugned judgment “only on the question of quantum of interest”. 11. Trial Court records are secured. 12. The learned counsel for the defendants though admit the agreement of sale and transaction entered into in between plaintiff and defendants specifically would submit that, the impugned judgment and decree dated 3.12.2010 is not sustainable in law and facts in view of the
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5095-DB RFA No. 364 of 2011
facts brought on record by the defendants in their written statement as well as cross-examination directed to DW.1 and evidence of PW.1, especially with regard to the rate of interest so imposed by the trial Court. 13. According to his submission, the learned trial Court has erred in holding that, defendants are liable to pay the interest from the date of filing of the suit and subsequent to the suit on the suit claim. The Learned counsel for the defendants fairly submits that, though the defendants disputes and have challenged the entire findings of the trial Court, but restricts this appeal with regard to levying of interest by the trial Court.
As against this submission, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent supported the findings of the learned trial Court and according to his submission, the trial Court has appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and because of conduct of the defendants, it has awarded agreed rate of interest as per the sale
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5095-DB RFA No. 364 of 2011
agreement. Therefore, the findings of the learned trial Court cannot be interfered with by this Court. 15. In view of rival submissions of both side, the point that would arise for our consideration to decide this appeal is: “Whether the trial Court has committed any error in imposing interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree dated 3.12.2010? and further interest @6% p.a from the date of decree till its realization?” 16. Before adverting to the other aspects of the case, it is necessary to incorporate the admitted facts between both parties. They are as under: a) Plaintiff filed a suit against defendants for recovery of Rs.2 crores together with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the date of institution of suit till the decree and further interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of decree till its realization. b) There was a transaction between plaintiff and defendant with regard to the purchase of 250
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5095-DB RFA No. 364 of 2011
acres of coffee plantation and defendants stated to be same agreed to sell the same property for a valuable consideration of Rs.4,30,76,000/-. c) By agreeing to purchase the same, by accepting the offer of the defendants, plaintiff paid Rs.19,15,000/- on the date of agreements dated 11.3.1998 by way of demand draft and agreed to pay Rs.1,34,000/- on or before 18.3.1998 so also agreed to pay balance at the time of execution of sale deed. d) Plaintiff also paid Rs.5,85,000/- by way of demand draft drawn on Indian Bank, Bengaluru so also Rs.21,00,000/- DD under three separate demand drafts of Rs.7,00,000/- each on 12.3.1998 drawn on the then State Bank of Mysuru, Bengaluru Branch and also paid Rs.19,98,500/- on 16.3.1998 by way of DD on Indus Bank Ltd., Bengaluru. On the date of agreement of sale he has paid Rs.5,85,000/- towards part of sale consideration amount. The defendants have received various amounts which they have acknowledged.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5095-DB RFA No. 364 of 2011
e) The defendants agreed to execute the sale deed on or before 11.7.1998 as per conditions in the agreement. f) The plaintiff alleges that defendants committed breach of contract; therefore, plaintiff is entitled for refund of amount paid because of breach of contract at the rate of 24% pa. from the date of payment till is realization. 17. These are admitted facts which need not be proved. However, plaintiff alleges that, she has spent substantial money towards improvement of the property proposed to be purchased by spending Rs.13,58,315.08/- and this money is spent towards upkeep and improvements of Schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties. 18. So far as receipt of money from the plaintiff by the defendants is concerned, they admit. Considering the rival pleadings and evidence placed on record by the parties to the litigation, the learned trial Court passed a decree as under:
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5095-DB RFA No. 364 of 2011
“…..On contest by Judgment, it is ordered and decreed that the suit filed by the plaintiff against defendants is hereby partly decreed. It is further ordered and decreed that the defendants No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/-Rs.Two Crores only) with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization. It is further ordered and decreed that the defendant nos. 1 to 3 do pay o the plaintiff a sum of Rs.3,22,166/- being the amount of proportionate costs incurred in this suit as by memorandum annexed.” 19. As this appeal is restricted with regard to the rate of interest so levied by the trial Court, now the suit of the plaintiff is almost is like a money recovery suit. The learned trial Court while answering the relevant issues, has come to the conclusion that respondent-plaintiff is entitled to claim interest on the amount so paid based
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5095-DB RFA No. 364 of 2011
upon the agreement of sale entered into between plaintiff and defendant. 20. With regard to Ex.P1 and P2, the agreement of sale dated 11.3.1998 entered into between plaintiff and defendants; there is no dispute as such. As per condition No.7 in both the agreements, it is recited that if there is a breach committed with regard to the said contract, the interest has to be charged at 24% p.a. The said condition no.7 in both these Ex.P1 to P2 which are similar read as under:
“That if the vendors commit breach of this Agreement or fail to perform their part of this contract the purchaser shall be entitled to obtain refund of the sums paid by breach is noticed by her with interest hereon at 24% per annum from the vendors jointly and severally till realization with a charge over the schedule properties and the crop thereon, without prejudice to her rights to obtain specific performance of his agreement in which even also she is entitled to the costs, loss and damage thereof.”
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5095-DB RFA No. 364 of 2011
Thus, there is a written contract between plaintiff and defendants to charge interest in case there is breach of contract. 22. Now we have to ascertain whether the plaintiff is really entitled for the interest as claimed and as decreed by the trial Court. To ascertain the same, we have to read the provisions of Section 34 of CPC, it speaks of interest and the same is as follows:
Section 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, 1 [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.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5095-DB RFA No. 364 of 2011
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 percent. 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 Sub-section, "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. (2) Where such a decree is silent with respect to the payment of further interest 3[on such principal sum] from the date of the decree to the date of payment or other earlier date, the Court shall be deemed to have refused such interest, and a separate suit therefore shall not lie.”
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5095-DB RFA No. 364 of 2011
If the operative portion of the decree passed by the trial Court is perused, it clearly indicate that, the trial Court has exercised its discretion as provided under Section 34 of CPC. The provisions of this Section including the sub-sections do indicate that, the discretion is vested in the Court under this provision with regard to the rate of interest, but, it is with regard to whether the interest should be awarded or not, thereby, the discretion is two- fold, that means, the Court may award interest and may award such interest at such rate as the Court feels it reasonable to be awarded on the principal amount adjudged from the date of the suit till the date of 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 6% p.a. as the court deems it reasonable on such principal sum from the date of decree to the date of payment or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit.
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5095-DB RFA No. 364 of 2011
While awarding interest, the Court has to keep in mind the concept of `usage’ which has a special significance, as it is to be understood as `custom’ which is often pleaded in common law litigations, have to be considered. To establish custom, there should be such clinching and appealing material for the Court to support the case of the litigant to propound such a custom. Usage and Custom are often pleaded but, not proved. That proof of such usage could easily be negatived or falsified by the conduct of the parties themselves is an accepted principle. That means, in the absence of contract to the contrary, the provisions of the Interest Act would come to the rescue of the creditor, whereby he could claim interest at 6% p.a. on the due date provided, he makes a demand for that purpose. 25. The law says that, ordinarily, an interest is to be paid at the agreed rate unless, penal/excessive or transaction is substantially unfair. With regard to the future interest, the law says that, it is really in the nature
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5095-DB RFA No. 364 of 2011
of damage for being kept out of money. Therefore, a Court of law has a discretion both as regards rate of interest as to whether interest is to be allowed or not. 26. Condition No.7 in the agreement with regard to breach of contract and payment of interest was very much within the knowledge of defendants. The evidence spoken to by PW.1 clearly shows that, there was a breach of a contract. As per the submission of the counsel for the plaintiff, when there is breach of contract as per practice, usage and custom, the plaintiff is entitled for interest. Now defendants dispute the rate of interest only, thereby, admit the claim of the plaintiff with regard to the refund of earnest money paid by the plaintiff. 27. Under Section 34 of CPC, when there is contractual rate of interest as per Condition No.7 in Ex.P1 and P2, the interest will be at the rate at which money was advanced by the plaintiff towards purchase of properties. The rate of interest claimed by the Banks in commercial transactions varies from year to year and from Bank to
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5095-DB RFA No. 364 of 2011
Bank. The defendants have not produced any evidence as to what was the rate of interest claimed by the Nationalized Banks as on the date of agreements of sale. In the absence of the same, as Ex.P1 and P2 which are admitted documents being the agreements of sale have to be accepted. Now defendants cannot contend that there shall be modification in the rate of interest. The plaintiff has paid substantial money as a token advance with a hope to purchase the schedule properties. But defendants without disclosing the material facts have received the same but failed to discharge their obligation to execute the sale deed, thereby committed breach of contract which attracts the provisions of Section 73 of Indian Contract Act. This Section speaks of compensation or loss or damage caused by breach of contract. Therefore, now, the claim for modification of the interest by the defendants- appellants by preferring this appeal disentitles them from seeking any reduction in rate of interest. The defendants cannot challenge the said grant of interest as ordered by the trial Court.
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5095-DB RFA No. 364 of 2011
We are conscious of the fact that, plaintiff has not preferred any appeal against judgment and decree as there is refusal to grant a decree for specific performance of the contract. The learned trial Court has decreed the suit of the plaintiff directing the defendants to refund the amount with interest. Therefore, the grant of interest being a matter of procedure and hence, defendants cannot escape the liability of paying the interest as per strict provisions of Section 34 of CPC which prescribe that, in addition to pendente lite and future interest, additional interest adjudged on such advance amount for the period prior to the institution of the suit can also be granted as per the agreement between the parties as per the usage and custom. 29. Section 34 of CPC is based upon justice, equity and good conscience. Indeed question of interest which a Court may allow in a given case is governed by the facts of the case and not by any precedent. Generally, money suits include suits on promissory notes, suits on accounts, suits
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5095-DB RFA No. 364 of 2011
for recovery of rent, suits on mortgages and the like and this suit is also virtually has become suit for recovery of money. The plaintiff has claimed specific amount in the plaint and by appreciating the evidence by both the parties, the trial Court has decreed the suit for refund of money. Now the appellants/defendants cannot escape the liability to pay the interest as ordered by the trial Court which is based on the evidence placed on record by both the parties and also on the terms and conditions of the agreements of sale between the parties. 30. We do not find any factual or legal error committed by the trial Court in awarding the interest. Therefore, this appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed with costs of respondent-plaintiff. Accordingly, the aforesaid point is answered in favour of respondent.
Resultantly, we pass the following:
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5095-DB RFA No. 364 of 2011
ORDER i. Appeal is dismissed. ii. Order regarding imposition of interest @24% p.a from the date of suit till the date of decree and interest @6% p.a from the date of decree till its realization is confirmed. iii. Appellants are directed to pay the decretal amount together with accrued interest within six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. iv. Send back the trial Court records along with copy of this judgment forthwith. v. No orders as to cost in this appeal.
Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE
Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE Sk/CT-VG