Narayanan Vs. Manoharan

Narayanan vs Manoharan

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Kerala Decided Nov 26, 2009

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/849124

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/849124
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: S.S. Satheesachandran, J.
Decided On: Nov 26, 2009
Case Number: C.R.P. No. 203 of 2004
Subject: Civil
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Narayanan

Advocate P.V. Surendranath and; Bindumol Joseph, Advs.

Respondent

Manoharan

Legal References

Acts: Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 28
Reported In: 2010(1)KLT63

AI Legal Summary

Get an instant AI-powered legal breakdown - case summary, ratio decidendi, key issues, and more.

Excerpt

.....the murder charge. [para 9] it is clear that pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. the finding of the trial court and the appellate court in that behalf is correct. for this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10] it is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under section 304b, ipc with the aid of section 113b, indian evidence act but also the offence under section 201, ipc. [para 15] held: we have gone through the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court carefully and we find that both the courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. we, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16].....the court which passed the decree from passing appropriate orders having regard to the decree passed in exercise of the powers conferred by section 28 of the specific relief act. petitioner/plaintiff who had been given a decree for specific performance of an agreement for sale by deposit of the balance sale consideration within the time stipulated by the court evidently is not interested in enforcing that decree, but, only for claiming the cost awarded under the decree. in the nature of the decree granted cost forms an integral part of the decree for specific performance of the agreement for sale and without satisfying the condition imposed forgetting such specific performance, it is not open to the plaintiff to realize such cost from the defendant. the defendant has not moved for rescinding the contract of sale for the reason of the default of the petitioner/plaintiff also does not enable the petitioner/plaintiff to execute the cost awarded alone as if it is realizable separately without taking steps for enforcing the decree for getting the sale deed executed on deposit of the balance sale consideration. there is no impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

S.S. Satheesachandran, J.

1. The revision is directed against the order dated 20.8.2003 in E.P. No. 151 of 2002 in O.S. No. 146 of 1997 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Thalassery. Petitioner is the plaintiff/decree holder in a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale. Suit was decided allowing the petitioner/plaintiff to pay the balance sale consideration to the judgment debtor within one month from the date of the decree with direction to the judgment debtor to execute the sale deed on such deposit. In default of the judgment debtor to execute the sale deed on deposit of the balance sale consideration, petitioner/plaintiff was allowed to get the sale deed executed through court. Cost was also awarded in the suit to the petitioner/plaintiff. Without depositing the balance sale consideration and moving for getting the sale executed by the judgment debtor, the petitioner/plaintiff applied for execution of the cost alone awarded under the decree by filing the above Execution Petition. The learned Sub Judge dismissed that application vide the impugned order. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the revision.

2. I heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The court which passed the decree for specific performance does not cease to lose its jurisdiction, but retain control over the decree even after it has been passed. The application is filed as an Execution Petition in no way interdict the court which passed the decree from passing appropriate orders having regard to the decree passed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act. Petitioner/plaintiff who had been given a decree for specific performance of an agreement for sale by deposit of the balance sale consideration within the time stipulated by the court evidently is not interested in enforcing that decree, but, only for claiming the cost awarded under the decree. In the nature of the decree granted cost forms an integral part of the decree for specific performance of the agreement for sale and without satisfying the condition imposed forgetting such specific performance, it is not open to the plaintiff to realize such cost from the defendant. The defendant has not moved for rescinding the contract of sale for the reason of the default of the petitioner/plaintiff also does not enable the petitioner/plaintiff to execute the cost awarded alone as if it is realizable separately without taking steps for enforcing the decree for getting the sale deed executed on deposit of the balance sale consideration. There is no impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the court below in dismissing the Execution Petition. Revision lacks merit, and it is dismissed.