C. Ezhumalai vs C. Elanchezhiyan
2022 Latest Caselaw 6203 Mad

                                                                                       S.A.No. 642 of 2016


                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                      DATED : 25.03.2022

                                                             CORAM

                           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

                                                       S.A.No. 642 of 2016

                     C. Ezhumalai                                                ...      Appellant

                                                                Vs

                     C. Elanchezhiyan                                            ...      Respondent

                     PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., to set aside
                     the Judgment and Decree dated 07.10.2015 in A.S.No.19 of 2013 on the
                     file of the District Judge, Tiruvannamalai and confirming the Judgment
                     and Decree dated 19.07.2013 in O.S.No.99 of 2012 on the file of the
                     Subordinate Judge, Arni.
                                        For Appellant       : Mr.T.V.Badrinarayanan

                                        For Respondent      : Mr.M.Venkatakrishnan

                                                           JUDGMENT

The plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking for the relief of specific

performance based on the agreement of sale dated 23.07.2012 or in the

alternative, for the relief of refund of advance amount with interest at the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A.No. 642 of 2016

rate of 12% per annum till the date of realisation.

3. Both the Courts below, on appreciation of the oral and

documentary evidence and after considering the facts and circumstances

of the case, concurrently held against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit.

Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has approached this Court and filed

the second appeal.

4. When the matter came up for final hearing on 11.03.2022, this

Court took into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and

suggested that interest of justice would require the refund of the advance

amount with interest. This is in view of the fact that both the Courts

below had concurrently held that the plaintiff will not be entitled for the

relief of specific performance. Hence, this Court directed the respondent

to be present before this Court during the next date of hearing.

5. Accordingly, when the matter was taken up for hearing today,

the respondent was present. When he was enquired about his financial

position, he informed that he is an agriculturist and that he is not in a

position to immediately pay the amount and he would require atleast https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A.No. 642 of 2016

three months time to repay the advance amount with interest.

6. Insofar as the interest amount is concerned, the learned counsel

for the appellant submitted that even as per the agreement, the respondent

had agreed to refund double the advance amount with interest. The

learned counsel further submitted that even at the time of filing the suit,

the refund amount was sought for with interest at the rate of 12% per

annum. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted

that the interest can be fixed at 7.5% per annum.

7. In the considered view of this Court, in order to maintain the

balance, 9% interest can be fixed from the date of agreement till

31.03.2022. When this was putforth before the learned counsel

appearing on either side, the same was consented and hence this

judgment is passed on the consent given by either side.

8. In view of the above, the Judgment and Decree passed by the

Trial Court is modified. The respondent / defendant is directed to refund

the advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9%

per annum from the date of agreement till 31.03.2022. The total amount https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A.No. 642 of 2016

works out to a sum of Rs.1,87,000/-. Considering the fact that the

respondent is an agriculturist and he would require some time to arrange

for this amount, time is granted to the respondent to pay this amount of

Rs.1,87,000/- on or before 24.06.2022. A decree shall be drawn in the

second appeal accordingly.

9. This second appeal is disposed of with the above direction.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no

order as to costs.

10. Post this case under the caption 'For Reporting Compliance'

on 24.06.2022.

25.03.2022

Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No Lpp

To

1.The District Judge, Tiruvannamalai.

2.The Subordinate Judge, Arni.

N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A.No. 642 of 2016

Lpp

S.A.No. 642 of 2016

25.03.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis