Madras High Court
R.Sampath ... Defendant / vs M/S.Indian Oil Corporation Ltd on 2 August, 2021
A.S.(MD)No.139 of 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 02.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
A.S.(MD)No.139 of 2015
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2015
and
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.10586 & 10587 of 2016
R.Sampath ... Defendant / Appellant
-Vs-
M/s.Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
Rep., by its Deputy Manager (Retail Sales),
Marketing Division,
Divisional Office,
Salem. ... Plaintiff / Respondent
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Order 41 Rule 1 and Section 96 of the Civil
Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2014 passed
in O.S.No.11 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Court, Karur.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Selvan
for Mr.C.Mayil Vahana Rajendran
For Respondent : Mr.R.Muraleedharan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/6
A.S.(MD)No.139 of 2015
JUDGMENT
The defendant in O.S.No.11 of 2011 on the file of the Principal
District Judge, Karur is the appellant in this appellant. The respondent
herein namely Indian Oil Corporation Limited filed the said suit for
recovering a sum of Rs.10,30,831/- with interest at the rate of 18% per
annum. The plaintiff had been running their outlet in the suit property in
their capacity as lessee. They had taken only a vacant site on lease from
one Sakthivel. The plaintiff had also erected superstructure. A portion of
the property was acquired for national highways. In the meanwhile, the
ownership of the land had changed hands. The appellant herein had
purchased the land. The acquiring authority disbursed compensation also to
the appellant herein. The appellant herein as rightly pointed out by the
learned counsel for the plaintiff / respondent herein, was entitled to receive
compensation only for the site. As regards the compensation for the
superstructure, the amount should have been paid only to the plaintiff
Corporation. Unfortunately, the appellant herein received the compensation
for the superstructure also from the acquiring authority. To recover the said
amount, the present suit came to be instituted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.(MD)No.139 of 2015
2. The defendant, of-course, filed a written statement raising certain
defences. The trial Judge framed the issue as to whether the plaintiff is
entitled to amount as claimed in the plaint. On behalf of the plaintiff, as
many as three persons were examined as witnesses. Ex.A1 to Ex.A13 were
marked. The appellant examined himself as D.W.1. Through the official
witness, Court Ex.1 to Ex.4 were marked. After consideration of the
evidence on record, by the impugned judgment and decree dated
11.12.2014, the trial Court directed the defendant to pay a sum of
Rs.6,71,551/- to the plaintiff with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from
04.02.2008 till the date of plaint and thereafter, at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of realization. Challenging the same, this appeal came to be
filed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated all the
contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds and called upon this
Court to reverse the impugned judgment and allow this appeal.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent
submitted that the impugned judgment and decree do not call for any
interference.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.(MD)No.139 of 2015
5. I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the
evidence on record. The only point that arises for determination is whether
the plaintiff had established that they were entitled to the decretal claim.
There is no dispute that the defendant / appellant had purchased only a
vacant site from the plaintiff's lessee. The superstructures were admittedly
put up only by the plaintiff. When the property was acquired, the acquiring
body paid compensation both for the land as well as for the superstructure.
The appellant was entitled to receive compensation only for the land and
not for the superstructure. In any event, he could not have retained it. He
should have immediately passed it on to the plaintiff. He did not do so.
Therefore, the trial Court rightly passed the impugned judgment.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant brings it to my notice that the
plaintiff himself has admitted that a sum of Rs.73,160/- was retained by way
of deduction of tax at source. The defendant received only a sum of
Rs.5,98,930/-. The Court below had not taken into account the deduction of
tax at source. Therefore, to that extent, the decree calls for interference.
The decree passed by the trial Court is modified accordingly. The appellant
is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,98,930/- with interest at the rate of 9% per
annum from 04.02.2008 till the date of plaint and thereafter, at the rate of
6% per annum from the date of realization.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.(MD)No.139 of 2015
7. The appeal is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
02.08.2021
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
rmi
To
1.The Principal District Court, Karur.
2.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.(MD)No.139 of 2015
G.R.SWAMINATHAN.J.,
rmi
Judgment made in
A.S.(MD)No.139 of 2015
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2015
and
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.10586 & 10587 of 2016
02.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
