IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 RFA.No. 400 of 2003() ------------------------------ OS.49/2001 of SUB COURT, NEDUMANGAD .................... APPELLANT/DEFENDANT: ------------------------------------- NIZARUDEEN, S/O. MEERAN PILLAI, V.P.HOUSE, MUTHIYAKUZHI, THANNOR VILLAGE, ANAD MURI. BY ADV. SRI.N.SUKUMARAN SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): PLAINTIFF: ----------------------------------------- P.SASIDHARAN NAIR, S/O.PADMANABHA PILLAI, SURYAGIRI, CHEMPAKAMANGALAM, MELTHONNAKKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.V.JAYAKUMAR THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- R.F.A. NO. 400 OF 2003 D --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th November, 2009 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Appellant is the defendant. The respondent filed a Suit for realisation of amount which he had paid to the appellant by way of advance in the context of a contract for sale. The trial court has decreed the Suit in a sum of Rs.2,14,000/= with 12 per cent interest on Rs.2,00,000/= from the date of Suit till the date of decree and interest at 6 per cent from the date of decree till realisation and costs. 2. We heard Shri N. Sukumaran, learned counsel for the appellant and also Shri V. Jayakumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 3. The court below has found that the appellant committed breach of the contract. It is further found that he never measured out the plaint schedule property and never convinced the extent to the plaintiff within the karar date. It is further found that the appellant never produced the original title deed and the prior deeds of the plaint schedule property to the respondent/plaintiff before the karar date. It is further found that though the appellant contended that the plaintiff is liable to compensate him for non-execution of the sale deed or that the RFA.NO.400/03 D 2 appellant has sustained loss, there is no evidence as to any loss suffered by the appellant. It is noted that there is no counter claim also. 4. The Suit is for return of the advance amount. The trial court has found that breach has been committed by the appellant as aforesaid. The trial court also found that there is also no evidence as to loss sustained by the appellant. We see no reason why we should interfere with the Judgment and Decree. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed as without merit. But in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge