Before :- R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.
Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 29889 of 2018. D/d. 16.10.2019.
A. Sujaudheen - Petitioners
Versus
C.R. Viran (Dead) Through Lrs. Nagalakshmi & Ors. - Respondents
For the Petitioners :- K.V. Vishwanathan, Sr.Adv., Raghenth Basant, Mithun Verghis, Raghav Mehrotra, Ms. Liz Mathew, Advocates.
For the Respondents :- Vikas Mehta, Ms. Anushree Menon, Vasanth Bharani, P. I. Jose, Harikumar V., Advocates.
JUDGMENT
R. Banumathi, J. - The special leave petition arises out of the judgment of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Regular First Appeal No.17 of 2009 dated 04.04.2018 in and by which the High Court has reversed the judgment of the Trial Court and declined the discretionary relief of the specific performance to the petitioner-plaintiff. However, the High Court vide the impugned judgment has granted alternative relief of refund of the advance amount of L 35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs) with interest at the rate of 12% to the petitioner-plaintiff, as indicated in the impugned judgment.
2. We have heard Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Vikas Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the impugned judgment and the materials on record.
3. Having regard to the submissions made at the Bar, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
4. After the judgment of the Trial Court, the petitioner-plaintiff has deposited the balance sale consideration of L 1,84,67,680/- (Rupees One Crore Eighty Four Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand Six Hundred Eighty) in the court on 30.01.2009 and the said amount has been deposited in the Sub-Treasury. The certificate of remittance issued by the Sub-Treasury shows that the deposit is still maintained by it. The petitioner-plaintiff had filed an application for withdrawal of the said amount of L 1,84,67,680/- (Rupees One Crore Eighty Four Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand Six Hundred Eighty) which was no doubt allowed. However, in order to show the bona fide it is stated that the petitioner-plaintiff has not chosen to withdraw the said amount from the Sub- Treasury and the amount is still lying in the Treasury.
5. In view of above, since the petitioner's amount of L 1,84,67,680/- (Rupees One Crore Eighty Four Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand Six Hundred Eighty) has been lying in the Sub-Treasury without earning any interest and in view of this order the respondents will be entitled to retain the property, in the interest of justice we deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to pay a lump sum amount of L 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs) to the petitioner-plaintiff as a matter of equity and compensation. Ordered accordingly. The lump sum amount of L 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs) is in addition to the refund of the advance amount of L 35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs) along with the accrued interest on the same as ordered by the High Court. The amount of L 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs), as directed above, is payable by the respondents to the petitioner-plaintiff within a period of six months failing which the same shall carry interest at the rate of 12%. The petitioner-plaintiff is forthwith permitted to withdraw the amount of L 1,84,67,680/- (Rupees One Crore Eighty Four Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand Six Hundred Eighty) etc. lying in the Sub-Treasury.
6. With the above modification, the special leave petition is dismissed.
