Janaki M vs Rajesh P.P
2023 Latest Caselaw 11415 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
  WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 17TH KARTHIKA,
                               1945
                       RFA NO. 522 OF 2014
   JUDGMENT DATED 31-05-2014 IN OS 206/2012 OF SUB COURT,
                            PAYYANNUR
APPELLANT/DEFENDANT:

         JANAKI M.
         AGED 53 YEARS
         D/O.MANHERI PUTHIYA VEETTIL MADHAVI AMMA, MANHERI
         PUTHIYA VEETTIL HOUSE, LAB ASSISTANT, CHUZHALI
         AMSOM, NEDUVALOOR DESOM, NOW RESIDING AT NEAR
         VANI VILASAM SCHOOL, MUNDERI, MUNDERI P.O.,
         KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.
         BY ADV SRI.P.M.PAREETH


RESPONDENTS/SUPPLEMENTARY PLAINTIFFS:

         RAJESH P.P.
         AGED 35 YEARS
         S/O.KRISHNAN VAIDAR, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE,
         BUSINESS, TALIPARAMBA AMSOM, KUPPAM DESOM,
         PULIMPARAMBA P.O., TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR
         DISTRICT-670141.
         BY ADVS.
         SMT.VIDHYA. A.C
         SRI.A.C.VENUGOPAL


     THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 08.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                        Sathish Ninan, J.
                    =====================
                    R.F.A.No.522 of 2014
             ===================================
           Dated this the 8th day of November, 2023

                                JUDGMENT

The suit for specific performance was decreed by

the trial court for return of advance sale

consideration. The court also granted a decree for

realization of costs. The defendant is in appeal

challenging the quantum of costs.

2. I have heard the learned counsel on either

sides.

3. The decree part relating to costs reads thus:

"4. that the plaintiff also allowed to realise a sum of ₹ 234735/- being the cost of the suit from the defendant and his assets."

4. The court has calculated costs with reference

to the valuation for the claim for specific performance.

The decree was granted only for return of advance sale

consideration. The plaintiff is entitled to only

proportionate costs. However, cost was calculated with

R.F.A.No.522 of 2014

reference to the main relief of specific performance. It

is evidently a mistake. The quantum of costs that the

plaintiff is entitled to, has been calculated and

extracted in the appeal memorandum thus:

Court fee on Rs.5,60,000/- Rs.54,400.00

Stamp on vakkalath Rs. 25.00

Stamp on petition Rs. 25.00

Summons & notice batta Rs. 25.00

Advocates fee (Senior) Rs.30,400.00

Advocate fee (Junior) Rs.15,200.00

-------------

Rs.100075.00 ============

5. The decree is liable to be modified by

refixing the quantum of costs as above.

Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. The decree of

the trial court insofar as it relates to costs will

stand modified and the costs will stand re-fixed at

Rs.1,00,075/-. The same shall be paid within a period of

two months from today.

Sd/-

Sathish Ninan, Judge rsr