Kerala High Court
Vesamma vs Laila on 3 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1944
RP NO. 978 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RSA 267/2009 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/ADDITIONAL APPELLANTS:
1 VESAMMA,WIDOW OF RAJAN, AGED 75 YEARS
RESIDING AT PADINJARE VEEDU, HOSPITAL JUNCTION,
CHITTUR P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 101.
2 OMANA KUMARAN, D/O LATE RAJAN, AGED 55 YEARS
RESIDING AT RATE HOUSE, AYYAPPAN KULAMBE,
KARIPODE P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN: 678 503.
3 SARASWATHY GANGADHARAN,D/O LATE RAJAN,AGED 53
YEARS
RESIDING AT PADINJARE VEEDU, HOSPITAL JUNCTION,
CHITTUR P.O.,PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 101.
4 LEELAVATHI RAMAKRISHNAN, D/O LATE RAJAN, AGED 50
YEARS
RESIDING AT PADINJARE VEEDU,SREEKRISHNA LEELA,
KACHERIMEDU, CHITTUR P.O.,PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678
101.
5 MANIKANDAN.R.,S/O LATE RAJAN,AGED 48 YEARS
RESIDING AT PADINJARE VEEDU, HOSPITAL JUNCTION,
CHITTUR P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 101.
6 VASANTHAKUMARI, D/O LATE RAJAN , AGED 45 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 15/11, TATABAD, 3RD
STREET,COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU, PIN: 641 012.
7 R.UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O LATE RAJAN,AGED 43 YEARS
RESIDING AT PADINJARE VEEDU, HOSPITAL JUNCTION,
CHITTUR P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 101.
BY ADVS.
T.C.SURESH MENON
B.DEEPAK
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
LAILA,D/O C.V.CHANDU MUHAMMED, RESIDING AT
COURT ROAD, THAMARACHIRA, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.H.BADARUDDIN
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Sathish Ninan, J.
==============================
Review Petition No.978 of 2022
==========================
Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2022
ORDER
The plea of part performance having been
negatived, the advance sale consideration paid ought to
have been directed to be refunded with interest. So
also, the respondent-plaintiff ought to have been
directed to pay the value of improvements effected in
the property. The omission to consider the above in the
judgment dated 17.08.2022 gives rise to this Review
Petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel on either side.
3. That an amount of D 6,000/- was received as
advance sale consideration under Ext B1 agreement, dated
31.10.1978, is not disputed. It is only deemed equitable
that, while recovering possession, the plaintiff returns
the said advance amount with interest at the rate of 6%
per annum from the date of Ext B1 viz, 31.10.1978 till
Review Petition No.978 of 2022
the date of payment.
4. As regards the claim for the value of
improvements effected in the property, in the written
statement it is pleaded that an amount of Rs.50,000/-
has been expended for effecting improvements in the
property. That does not appears to be a serious
challenge with regard to the same. The possession of
the defendants being under a colour of right, it is only
just and equitable that when a decree for recovery of
possession being granted, the plaintiff pays the value
of improvements to the defendant. In the absence of any
evidence to the contrary regarding the value of
improvements, I am inclined to accept the value of
improvements at Rs.50,000/- as claimed by the
defendants. While obtaining delivery of property, the
said delivery of the property shall be given to the
plaintiff on deposit of such amount in court to be paid
to the appellants/defendants.
Review Petition No.978 of 2022
5. Learned counsel for the review petitioners pray
that a period of one year may be granted to the review
petitioners to surrender vacant possession of the
property. Considering the fact that Ext B1 agreement is
of the year 1978 and the suit from which this Appeal
arises is of the year 2002, the review petitioners are
granted time till 30.06.2023 to surrender vacant
possession of the premises. This is subject to the
condition that, they shall, within two weeks from today,
file an undertaking before the trial court to
unconditionally vacate the property on or before
30.06.2023. No third parties shall be inducted into the
property, nor the review petitioners commit any waste or
make any constructions in the property.
6. The court while ordering delivery shall ensure
that the amounts as ordered in paragraph 3 and 4 above
have been deposited by the plaintiff for payment to the
defendants.
Review Petition No.978 of 2022
Review petition is ordered as above. Judgment dated
17.08.2022 will stand modified to the above extent.
Sd/-
Sathish Ninan, Judge
vdv
