IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 17TH BHADRA 1931 AS.No. 859 of 1998() -------------------- OS.47/1994 of SUB COURT,THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF: ---------------------------------- JOSEPH JOHN, S/O. JOHN, KALLIDUKKIL HOUSE, ALAKKODE KARA, AND VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: ------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI, COLLECTORATE, KUYILIMALA, IDUKKI. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THODUPUZHA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. N.K. THANKACHAN THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/08/2009, THE COURT ON 08/09/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A.S.No. 859 of 1998 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the ...th day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No. 47 of 1994 on the file of the Sub Court, Thodupuzha. Respondents 1 to 3 are the defendants 1 to 3 in that suit, which was filed for realisation of money. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit on the basis of the following allegations. He was the owner of an extent of 3 acres and 10 cents of property in Alakode Village. This property was purchased by the first respondent for providing house site to landless workers. The price fixed was Rs.4,82,600/-. The sale deed was executed on 14.9.1992 and contingent bill No.19/92-93 was issued for the said amount. 3. The said bill was presented in the Sub Treasury, Thodupuzha on 14.9.1992 itself. But the bill was rejected A.S.No. 859 of 1998 2 on the ground that there was a Treasury ban imposed by the State Government. Thereafter the appellant made repeated representations before the respondents. Finally he was paid the amount only 8.1.1993. Thus, Rs.4,82,600/-, which ought to have been paid to the appellant on 14.9.1992 was illegally withheld by the respondents herein and as such the appellant claimed interest on the said amount at the rate of 15% per annum from 14.9.1992 till 8.1.1993. Thus the suit was filed by the appellant for realisation of the above mentioned amount by way of interest from respondents 1 to 3. 4. The respondents filed a written statement admitting the execution of the sale deed on 14.9.1992 in respect of the property in question. But, according to the respondents, the possession of the property continued with the appellant inspite of the execution of the sale deed. According to the respondents, the appellant submitted an application on 21.7.1992 for immediate payment and in pursuance of a special order dated A.S.No. 859 of 1998 3 22.12.1992, the amount was paid to the appellant on 8.1.1993. The actual physical possession of the property was taken over only on 7.1.1993 and the payment was made on the next day. The appellant was permitted to remove the building and the trees from the property and a period of 3 months from 7.1.1993 was allowed for the said purpose. They also stated that there was no agreement to pay interest. On these contentions they prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. In the Sub Court, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A4 were marked. No evidence was adduced on the side of the defendants. The learned Sub Judge, on considering the evidence, dismissed the suit with cost. Against that judgment and decree the plaintiff filed this appeal. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Sale Deed in respect of the property was executed by the A.S.No. 859 of 1998 4 appellant in favour of the defendants on 14.9.1992 for an amount of Rs.4,82,600/- and the contingent bill was issued to the appellant on the very same day itself, which would mean that the appellant is entitled to get that amount on 14.9.1992 itself. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the court below ought to have taken note of the fact that Section 3 of the Interest Act, 1978 governs the question involved in this case and as such the appellant is entitled to claim interest in the light of the specific provisions contained in that section. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant admitted the fact that in view of Section 3(1)(b) of the Interest Act, 1978 the appellant can claim interest only from the date of notice. Ext.A1 is the copy of Section 80 C.P.C. notice dt.10.12.1993 issued by the appellant to the respondents demanding Rs.23,153/- towards interest. In that notice it is admitted by the appellant that he has received an amount of Rs.4,82,600/- on 8.1.1993 before the issuance of that notice. In the written statement it is stated by A.S.No. 859 of 1998 5 the defendants that the amount was paid to the appellant by special order of the first defendant State Government. 9. In the present suit, the plaintiff claims Rs.23,153/- towards 15% interest on the amount of Rs.4,82,600/- from 14.9.1992 till 8.1.1993, on which date the plaintiff received Rs.4,82,600/- from the defendants. Therefore, it is clear that the present suit is based on a claim for interest only. On going through the provisions contained in the Interest Act, 1978, it is clear that only when there is a proceeding pending in a court for the recovery of some debt or sum certain the provisions of the Interest Act would enable the Court to award interest. The Act is only an enabling piece of legislation, by which the Court is vested with the discretion to grant interest under certain circumstances upon debts or sum certain, but there is nothing in the Act which of itself can be the subject matter of a separate suit. Therefore, it is clear that the present suit for interest alone A.S.No. 859 of 1998 6 is not maintainable. In that view of the matter, the learned Sub Judge is perfectly justified in dismissing the suit. 10. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed, as it is without any merit and the judgment and decree dismissing O.S.No. 47 of 1994 on the file of the Sub Court, Thodupuzha is confirmed. The parties are directed to suffer their respective cost in this appeal. (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm