[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Rajesh Babu vs Muralikrishnan on 20 January, 2026
Review petition 1547/2025 in RFA 59/2014
1
2026:KER:4544
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 30TH POUSHA, 1947
RP NO. 1547 OF 2025
RFA NO.59 OF 2014 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT
RAJESH BABU, AGED 58 YEARS
S/O RAJENDRAN, AMBALAMADATHIL, AROOR MURI,
AROOR VILLAGE, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
PIN - 688534
BY ADV SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN.V.ALAPATT
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS
1 MURALIKRISHNAN
S/O LATE MAYADEVI, VARIYATH VELIYIL, ERAMALLOOR
MURI, EZHUPUNNA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
PIN - 688532
2 SWATHI KRISHNAN,S/O LATE MAYADEVI, VARIYATH
VELIYIL, ERAMALLOOR MURI, EZHUPUNNA VILLAGE,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688532
3 V.K. KANAKAM, W/O RAJENDRAN KAMPAKKARAN,
AMBALAMADATHIL, AROOR MURI, AROOR VILLAGE,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688534
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.S.PRENJITH KUMAR
SRI.CIBI THOMAS
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 14.1.2026, THE COURT ON 20.01.2026
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Review petition 1547/2025 in RFA 59/2014
2
2026:KER:4544
ORDER
Dated : 20th January, 2026
The appellant in RFA 59/2014 filed this Review Petition praying for
reviewing the judgment dated 28.7.2025 passed by this Court. The appellant is
the defendant in O.S. 232/2011 on the file of the Sub Court, Cherthala. The
plaintiffs filed the above suit for realisation of a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-
deposited by their mother in the State Bank of Travancore, Aroor branch with
the defendant as her nominee. The defendant is none other than the brother of
the mother of the plaintiffs. The trial court decreed the suit directing the
defendant to pay a sum of Rs.8,26,500/- along with interest at the rate of 12 %
per annum from the date of decree till realisation. Aggrieved by the above
judgment and decree, the defendant preferred the RFA. As per the judgment
dated 28.7.2025, this Court dismissed the RFA, confirming the judgment and
decree of the trial court.
2. In this review Petition the appellant contends that he has already
deposited a sum of Rs.10,46,886/- before the Sub Court, Cherthala and that
the same has already been placed in Fixed Deposit in the name of the Sub
court. Annexure-1 is the copy of the term deposit certificate dated 26.11.2014
issued by the SBT in that respect. Therefore, according to the appellant, he is
not liable to pay interest to the plaintiffs for the period after 26.11.2014.
Review petition 1547/2025 in RFA 59/2014
2026:KER:4544
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
respondents/plaintiffs would argue that the above deposit was made by the
appellant as security as directed by the Court for staying the execution
proceedings and as such, the respondents are entitled to get interest till the
amount is paid. Since the appellant deposited the amount as security as a
condition for an interim stay against execution of the impugned judgment and
decree and since the amount was not paid to the respondents, the appellant is
liable to pay interest to the respondents till the date of payment. However, it is
made clear that since the appellant deposited the said amount in Fixed
Deposit, he will get the benefit of interest accrued thereon. At the same time,
he is liable to pay interest to the respondents till the date of payment.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant would argue that interest
at the rate of 12% awarded by the trial court and as confirmed by this Court, is
too exorbitant and hence he prayed for reducing the rate of interest. The above
argument was strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents on
the ground that in the memorandum of appeal, the rate of interest was not
challenged.
5. It is true that in the memorandum of appeal, the appellant has
not challenged the rate of interest. The learned counsel for the appellant
relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in I.K.Merchants
Pvt.Ltd. & Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., (Civil Appeal Nos.4560
Review petition 1547/2025 in RFA 59/2014
2026:KER:4544
& 4563 of 2025) would argue that awarding interest is purely the discretion of
the Court and while awarding interest the Court must be guided by equitable
considerations. In the above decision in paragraph 16 the Apex Court held
that :
"Be it noted, while the discretion to award interest, whether pendente
lite or post-decree, is well recognized, its exercise must be guided by
equitable considerations. The rate and period of interest cannot be
applied mechanically or at an unreasonably high rate without any
rationale. Though it is not possible to arrive at the actual value of
improvement or the inflation on the fair consideration, if paid at the
relevant point of time, it is just and necessary that the rate of interest
must be a reparation for the appellant. The Court must ensure that
while the claimant is fairly compensated, the award does not become
punitive or unduly burdensome on the Judgment Debtor. Therefore, the
rate of interest should be determined in a manner that balances both
fairness and financial impact, taking into account the "loss of use"
principle and economic prudence, in the specific facts of each case."
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents relied
upon the decision of the Apex Court in P.S.L.Ramanathan Chettiar and
Others. v. O.R.M.P.R.M.Ramanathan Chettiar, 1968 KHC 427. In the
above decision, in paragraph 12 and 13 the Apex Court held that :-
12. On principle, it appears to us that the facts of a judgment- debtor's
depositing a sum in court to purchase peace by way of stay of
execution of the decree on terms that the decree- holder can draw it
out on furnishing security, does not pass title to the money to the
decree-holder. He can if he likes take the money out in terms of the
Review petition 1547/2025 in RFA 59/2014
2026:KER:4544
order; but so long as he does not do it, there is nothing to prevent the
judgment- debtor from taking it out by furnishing other security, say, of
immovable property,' if the court allows him to do so and on his losing
the appeal putting the decretal amount in court in terms of Order 21
rule 1 C.P.C. in satisfaction of the decree.
13. The real effect of deposit of money in court as was done in this
case is to put the money beyond the reach of the parties pending the
disposal of the appeal. The decree- holder could only take it out on
furnishing security which means that the payment was not in
satisfaction of the decree and the security could be proceeded against
by the judgment debtor in case of his success in the appeal. Pending
The determination of the same, it was beyond the reach of the
judgment-debtor.
7. It is true that in the memorandum of appeal, the rate of interest
was not challenged. The plaintiffs filed this suit for realisation of a sum of
Rs.8,00,000/- deposited by their mother in the State Bank of Travancore,
Aroor branch with the defendant as her nominee. The appellant has already
deposited a sum of Rs.10,46,886/- before the Sub Court, Cherthala and the
same has already been placed in Fixed Deposit in the name of the Sub court.
In the Fixed Deposit receipt produced by the appellant the rate of interest
mentioned is 8.75%. Considering the prevailing rate of interest, 12% interest
awarded by the trial court is on the higher side. Since the granting of interest
is purely at the discretion of the Court and the prevailing rate of interest is
much less than the 12% awarded by the court below, I am inclined to reduce
the rate of interest payable by the appellant to 9%.
Review petition 1547/2025 in RFA 59/2014
2026:KER:4544
In the result, this Review Petition is disposed of reducing the rate of
interest payable by the appellant to the respondents from 12% to 9%. Make
necessary corrections in the judgment of this court dated 28.7.2025 and the
decree thereon.
Sd/- C.Pratheep Kumar, Judge
Mrcs/16.1.26
Review petition 1547/2025 in RFA 59/2014
2026:KER:4544
APPENDIX OF RP NO. 1547 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT AND TERM
DEPOSIT CERTIFICATE DATED 26-11-2014
ISSUED BY THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE
IN RP
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE
ISSUED BY DR.SINCIL SAINULEDDEEN,
MEDICAL OFFICER, PRIMARY HEALTH
CENTRE, KUPPAPURAM IN AFFIDAVIT
