IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2010 / 15TH ASHADHA 1932 CRP.No. 274 of 2007() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07/03/2006 IN EP.1/2005 IN LAR.76/1988 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): JUDGMENT DEBTOR/2ND RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------- THRISSUR MUNICIPALITY NOW THRISSUR CORPORATION REP. BY SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS,SC,THRISSUR CORPORATION SRI.LELLULAL T.G.THUNDATHIL SRI.K.A.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S)/DECREE HOLDERS 1 TO 4 AND 2ND JUDGMENT DEBTOR /CLAIMANTS AND 1ST RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THRESSIAMMA GEORGE, T.C.XV/378, JAYA MANSION COMPOUND, TRIVANDRUM. 2. MATHEW GEORGE, S/O LATE C.M.GEORGE, XV/378, JAYA MANSION COMPOUND, TRIVANDRUM. 3. MARIAMMA XAVIER, D/O LATE C.M.GEORGE, XV/378, JAYA MANSION COMPOUND, TRIVANDRUM. 4. C.V.ANTONY, S/O LATE C.M.GEORGE, CHETTUPUZHAKKARAN HOUSE, EKKANDAWARRIER ROAD, THRISSUR. 5. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(L.A)., THRISSUR CORPORATION, THRISSUR. ADV. SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN FOR R.4 SMT.M.R.MINI FOR R.4 SRI.JAYKAR.K.S. FOR R.4 SRI.C.A.CHACKO FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI P.R.JAYAKRISHNAN FOR R5 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.274 of 2007 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of July, 2010. ORDER Order dated 07.03.2006 in E.P.No.1 of 2005 in L.A.R.No.76 of 1988 of the court of learned Additional Sub Judge-II, Thrissur is under challenge at the instance of judgment debtor No.2.. Vide the impunged order, petitioner was directed to deposit a further sum of Rs.2,73,232.13. According to the learned counsel for petitioner respondent Nos.1 to 4 are not entitled to any interest on the amount of solatium awarded by reference court in so far as the decree does not provide for that and since the executing court cannot go behind the decree. It is also contended that executing court has calculated interest on rest of the enhanced compensation awarded without being provided for in the decree. I have heard learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 also. 2. Contention that in the absence of a provision in decree respondent Nos.1 to 4 could not claim interest on solatium cannot stand in the light of the decisions in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India [(2006) 8 SCC 457] and Collector, L.A. v. Jaswant Singh (2008 4 KLT 142). Those decisions, referring to the decision in Sunder v. Union of India [(2001) 7 SCC 211] have held that unless a claim of interest on solatium was made and rejected either by the reference or appellate court, claimant is entitled to get interest on solatium from 19.09.2001 onwards. There is no case that reference court in this CRP No.274/2007 2 case expressly or by necessary implication rejected claim of respondent Nos.1 to 4 for interest on solatium. Hence respondent Nos.1 to 4 are entitled to get interest on solatium awarded by reference court. 3. So far interest payable on rest of the enhanced compensation awarded by reference court is concerned, it is not disputed before me that such interest is payable only if the decree has provided that. 4. According to the learned counsel for petitioner no further amount is due to respondent Nos.1 to 4 and instead, excess amount has been deposited by the petitioner. This ofcourse is controverted by counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4. But, that controversy can be decided only after proper calculation of amount if any due with reference to the statements filed by the parties. That exercise has to be done by the court below. Resultantly, this revision Petition is allowed in the following lines: i. It is made clear that respondent Nos.1 to 4 are entitled to get interest on solatium awarded by reference court notwithstanding that no provision has been made for that in the decree of the reference court. ii. Claim for interest made by respondent Nos.1 to 4 on rest of the enhanced compensation will depend upon whether interest is provided in the decree of the reference court or not. CRP No.274/2007 3 iii. Executing court shall consider the statements filed by parties (as to be filed as per direction of that court) in the light of directions contained in clause Nos.(i) and (ii) above stated and decide whether any further amount is due to respondent Nos.1 to 4 and if so, amount thus due. I.A.No.807 of 2007 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks