IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2010 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 RFA.No. 356 of 2006(F) ------------------------------- [AS.NO.38/1994 OF DISTRICT COURT,THODUPUZHA, OS.NO.66/1993 OF SUB COURT,KATTAPPANA] .................... (PARTIES)/APPELLANTS: ------------------------------------ *1. N. RAMACHANDRAN, S/O. NEELAKANTA IYER, MANKOMBU KIZHAKKEMADATHIL, KOTTABHAGAM, PULIMKUNNU, KUTTANADU TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT 29, BOAG ROAD, T. NAGAR, MADRAS. *(DIED) 2. R. SARATCHANDRAN, S/O. N. RAMACHANDRAN, MANKOMBU KIZHAKKEMADATHIL, KOTTABHAGAM, PULIMKUNNU, KUTTANAD TALUK AND RESIDING AT 29, BOAG ROAD, T. NAGAR, MADRAS. *ADDL. APPELLANT 3 IMPLEADED: 3. RADHAMANI, SISTER OF SECOND APPELLANT, -DO- -DO-. *IMPLEADED AS THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DECEASED ORIGINAL FIRST APPELLANT AS PER THE DIRECTIONS IN PARA – 4 OF THE JUDGMENT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN. (PARTIES)/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------- 1. M.K. JOHN, MAMMOOTTIL, KANJIRAPALLY KARA, KANJIRAPALLY TALUK. 2. M.K. JOSE, MAMMOOTTIL, KANJIRAPALLY KARA, KANJIRAPALLY TALUK. 3. M.K. VARGHESE, MAMMOOTTIL, KANJIRAPALLY KARA, KANJIRAPALLY TALUK. ......2..... :-2-: R.F.A. NO.356/2006-F: 4. ANCY KURIAKOSE, MAMMOOTTIL, KANJIRAPPALLY KARA, KANJIRAPALLY TALUK. 5. M.J. KURIAKOSE, MAMMOOTTIL, KANJIRAPALLY KARA, KANJIRAPALLY TALUK. BY ADV. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.F.A.NO.356 OF 2006 ............................................. Dated this the 1st day of December, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kattappana in O.S.No.66/1993. The suit is one for realisation of the unpaid purchase money. The brief facts would reveal that 5 acres and 86 cents of land were purchased and an amount of Rs.11,720/= was reserved to be paid as unpaid purchase money. The defendants had not paid the amount, hence the suit. 2. The defendants, on the other hand, would contend that the plaintiffs did not have clear title to the property and there was a ceiling case, a partition suit and a notice from the Government towards plantation tax and therefore, the defendants did not pay the amount. 3. This was an appeal originally filed before the District Court, Thodupuzha and by virtue of the order in C.M.C.No.10/1997 this matter has been withdrawn to this court and notice should have been given at the time of : 2 : R.F.A.NO.356 OF 2006 withdrawal. Therefore further notice is not necessary. 4. The original first appellant died and his legal representatives are the second appellant and his sister Radhamani. I direct the Registry to incorporate the name of Radhamani also and Advocate Sri.P.B. Krishan is appearing for the appellants. 5. I had the opportunity to consider ten appeals together involving the same subject matter and I had considered and disposed it of. So far as excess land is concerned, the court itself found in those matters that there was no land in excess of the ceiling area and so, it was found in favour of the plaintiffs. So far as the plantation tax is concerned, a notice was issued as early as in 1984 to which a reply was sent and no action has been initiated for the last 2 ½ decades. Therefore that also has been found in favour of the plaintiffs. 6. Lastly, there was a partition suit filed before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Thodupuzha as O.S.No.82/1989 which was subsequently renumbered as O.S.No.195/1994. In that suit there was a direction to amend the plaint and pay court fee. No amendment was effected, no court fee was : 3 : R.F.A.NO.356 OF 2006 paid and ultimately the trial court rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code on 30.8.2008. Therefore that action also culminated. So nothing remains and therefore the amount which is reserved as unpaid purchase money is liable to be paid. 7. As per the stipulations in the document, the amount has to bear interest at the rate of 6% up to a particular date and after a period of 3 years it has to be at 15%. But it has to be stated that on account of the pendency of the civil litigation, the interest at the rate of 15% cannot be granted up to 1.9.2008. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled for realisation of the amount of Rs.11,720/= with 6% interest on the said sum from 8.11.1982 till 30.8.2008 and at the rate of 15% on the said sum from 1.9.2008 till realisation from the defendants with proportionate costs and by sale of the property which shall be a charge for the amount. Parties are directed to bear their respective costs in the appeal. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl : 4 : R.F.A.NO.356 OF 2006 M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.F.A.NO.356 OF 2006 ............................................. 1st day of December, 2010. J U D G M E N T