IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2009 / 12TH ASHADHA 1931 RSA.No. 387 of 2009() --------------------- AS.215/2004 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD OS.157/1999 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS ---------------------------------------------------- 1. RUGMANI W/O. VASUDEVAN, KALLINGAL PARAMBU, BANK ROAD, PUTHIYANKAM AMSOM, ALATHUR. 2. HARINARAYANAN S/O. VASUDEVAN, KALLINGAL PARAMBU, BANK ROAD, PUTHIYANKAM AMSOM, ALATHUR. BY ADV. SRI.A.R.GANGADAS RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF ----------------------------------- M.SASIKUMAR S/O. MEENAKSHI AMMA, PALLITHERUVU, PALAKKAD. (NOW RESIDING AT THARUVATHAPADI, IRUPPAKKAD, PIRAYIRI). THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. --------------------------- R.S.A.NO.387 OF 2009 --------------------------- DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2009 JUDGMENT Appellants are defendants in O.S.No.157/99 on the file of the Sub Court, Palakkad. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.215/2004 on the file of the Ist Additional District Court, Palakkad. The suit was filed for recovery of the advance amount. The trial court decreed the suit which was confirmed in appeal. Hence this Second Appeal. 2. The defendants executed an agreement for sale agreeing to sell an extent of 60 cents of land in Sy.No.95/6 at the rate of Rs.9,000/- per cent. The agreement is dated 6/5/1996. An amount of Rs.10,000/- was given as advance sale consideration. Subsequently, Rs.25,000/- each was paid on 10/7/1996, 10/8/1996 and 8/8/1996. It is further alleged that the defendants failed to execute the sale deed as agreed. Therefore, the plaintiff -2- R.S.A.No.387/2009 is not interested in applying for specific performance of the agreement. The suit was filed stating that he is entitled for refund of the advance sale consideration. 3. The defendants denied the contentions of the plaintiff and prayed for dismissal of the suit stating that the plaintiff is responsible for the breach of contract. The trial court considered the oral evidence of PW-1 and Exts.A1 to A7, and Ext.B1. The trial court on examination of the evidence on record, the circumstances and probabilities, concluded that the defendants have committed breach of Ext.A1 agreement. Therefore, the trial court passed a decree permitting the plaintiff to realise the amount advanced with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The Appellate Court also considered the very same contentions raised by the defendants and agreed with the findings of the trial court. The findings are arrived at purely based on evidence, facts and circumstances and probabilities. I fully agree with the findings entered by the court below. I find that there is no scope for -3- R.S.A.No.387/2009 invoking jurisdiction under Section 100 of C.P.C. No question of law much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration. In the result, the appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed in limine. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. kcv.