IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2011 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 RSA.No. 667 of 2011() --------------------- AS.54/2003 of SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR OS.713/1998 of MUNSIFF COURT, THALIPARAMBA .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT ------------------------------------------------- T.V.UMMER, S/O.MOOSAN, AGED 48 YEARS, CHENGALAYI AMSOM AND DESOM, THROUGH HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER C.H.MOOSAN, S/O.MOIDEEN, AGED 65 YEARS, CHENGALAYI AMSOM AND DESOM. BY ADV. SRI.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF ------------------------------------ P.SHADULI, S/O.ABDULLA, AGED 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT IRIKKOOR AMSOM AND DESOM, (P.O) IRIKKOOR. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J ........................................... RSA No.667 of 2011 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2011 JUDGMENT Defendant in O.S.713 of 1998 on the file of Munsiff Court, Taliparamba is the appellant. Respondent is the plaintiff. Respondent instituted the suit for realisation of Rs.50000/- with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of institution of the suit contending that he sold taxi jeep No.KL-13-B/2410 to the appellant on 24.4.1998 for a total consideration of Rs.2,50,000/- and on the date of the agreement, he received Rs.35,000/- and Rs.5000/- and Rs.45000/- was agreed to be paid on 10.5.1998 and 7.6.1998 respectively and Ext.A1 agreement was executed incorporating the terms. It is contended that appellant did not pay Rs.50,000/- as agreed and in spite of Ext.A2 notice demanding the amount, he did not pay the amount and therefore respondent is entitled to realise the amount. 2. Appellant resisted the suit admitting execution of Ext.A1 agreement and also that Rs.50,000/- is to be paid to the respondent as provided under Ext.A1. It was contended that Rsa 667/2011 2 appellant was made to believe that respondent is the R.C owner of the vehicle and there was no dues in respect of the vehicle and at the time of sale, it was found that huge amount is due to the bank and in such circumstances, appellant could not maintain the vehicle. On 3.6.1998, he sold the vehicle to one Jeevan as per an agreement. Respondent did not hand over the registration certificate of the vehicle and hence he was not able to hand over the registration certificate to Jeevan. Appellant thereby sustained a loss of Rs.68,000/-. It is therefore contended that appellant is not liable to pay the amount claimed. 3. Learned Munsiff, on the evidence found that appellant is bound to pay Rs.50,000/- as provided under Ext.A1 especially when he admitted sale of the vehicle to Jeevan and granted a decree for realisation of Rs.50,000/- with 6% interest from the date of the suit. Appellant challenged the decree before Sub Court, Payyannur in A.S.54 of 2004. Learned Sub Judge, on re- appreciation of the evidence confirmed the findings of learned Munsiff and dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in the second appeal. 4. Learned counsel appearing for appellant was heard. The Rsa 667/2011 3 argument of the learned counsel is that Ext.A1 provides for handing over of the registration certificate, but respondent did not hand over the registration certificate and therefore he is not liable to pay the amount. It was argued that due to the failure of the respondent to hand over the registration certificate, appellant could not hand over the registration certificate to Jeevan to whom the vehicle was sold and on that account, he sustained a loss of Rs.68,000/- and in such circumstances, courts below should not have granted the decree. 5. On hearing the learned counsel, I do not find any substantial question of law involved in the appeal. Though the learned counsel vehemently argued that there is no evidence to support the claim of PW1 that he had handed over the registration certificate to the appellant, it is the case of appellant himself that he sold the vehicle to Jeevan on 3.6.1998 even though as per Ext.A1, Rs.45,000/- is to be paid on 7.6.1998. If appellant had not handed over the registration certificate as claimed by him, at least before entering into an agreement with Jeevan for sale of the vehicle, appellant is expected to sent a notice to the respondent to hand over the registration certificate. Rsa 667/2011 4 Though learned counsel argued that in the reply notice sent to respondent for Ext.A2 lawyer notice, it was stated that registration certificate was not handed over, even the reply notice was not produced. On the evidence courts below rightly found that as provided under Ext.A1, appellant is bound to pay Rs.50,000/- to the respondent. When admittedly, appellant obtained possession of the vehicle under Ext.A1 agreement agreeing to pay Rs.5000/- on 10.5.1998 and Rs.45000/- on 7.6.1998 and before clearing the liability, appellant cannot wriggle out of the liability to pay Rs.50,000/- which is part of the consideration payable as provided under Ext.A1. In such circumstances, the appeal is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk