Bangalore District Court
Mr.K.Ravi Kumar vs M/S.Dreamz Infra India Ltd on 15 March, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE LXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-63), BENGALURU
PRESENT:
Sri Parameshwara Prasanna,
B.A.LL.B.,
LXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bangalore City.
Dated this the 15th day of March, 2017
O.S.No.196 / 2017
PLAINTIFF: Mr.K.Ravi Kumar,
S/o P.Kuppan,
Aged about 56 years,
R/at No.327, 6th 'D" Cross,
OMBR Layout,
Bangalore-560 043.
[By Sri.Rajendra.P.S, Advocate]
/v e r s u s/
DEFENDANT: M/s.Dreamz Infra India Ltd.,
A Company incorporated under Companies
Act., No.577/B, 2nd floor,
Outer ring road, Teachers colony,
Koramangala, Near Silk Board,
Bangalore-560 034,
Rept by Managing Director,
Mr.Disha Choudhary.
(Exparte)
Date of institution of the suit : 05.01.2017
Nature of the suit : Money Suit
2 O.S.No.196 /2017
Date of commencement of : 08.03.2017
recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 15.03.2017
was pronounced.
: Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration
-- 02 10
(Parameshwara Prasanna.B)
LXII ACC & SJ: B'LORE.
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of money.
2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that, the defendant Company during middle of the year 2012, given advertisement in the newspaper by undertaking to construct the flats and to sell them to the prospective purchasers. The plaintiff who came to know about the said project of defendant through advertisement entered into an Memorandum of understanding with the defendant on 25.6.2012 by agreeing to purchase a flat from the defendant and towards part sale consideration, the plaintiff paid Rs.14 lakhs to the defendant. As per the terms of Memorandum of Understanding the defendant was bound to construct flat in suit schedule property and to hand over the flat to the possession of the plaintiff within period of 20 months from the date 3 O.S.No.196 /2017 of Memorandum of Understanding. However the defendant failed to start construction work and to hand over the possession of the flat as per terms of Memorandum of Agreement. When the plaintiff questioned the defendant regarding the same, the plaintiff was given vague reply and later the plaintiff came to know that the defendant is not only cheated the plaintiff, but also many other investors by entering into registered Agreement for sale with a 3rd party in respect of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff thereafter requested the defendant for cancellation of MOU and for refund of money together with interest, but the defendant postponed the same with one pretext or the other. The defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.14 lakhs towards principal and Rs.11,34,000/- towards interest and as such on the date of filing of the suit a sum of Rs.25,34,000/- is due and outstanding from the defendant. Hence, according to the plaintiff, the plaintiff has been constrained to file the suit for recovery of Rs.25,34,000/-.
3. After admitting of the suit, the summons was issued to the defendant. Though the summons was duly served on the defendant, since the defendant has not opted to appear before the Court, the 4 O.S.No.196 /2017 defendant was placed ex-parte by this court on 13.02.2017 and case was posted for ex-parte evidence of the plaintiff.
4. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined himself as Pw.1 and got marked a document as Ex.P.1.
5. Heard arguments of learned advocate for the plaintiff and perused the records of the case.
6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the following points arise for consideration of the Court:
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought for in the plaint?
(2) What decree or order?
7. My finding on the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In Partly Affirmative;
Point No.2: As per final order;
for the following:
REASONS
8. POINT NO. 1 : The suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of money.
The case of the plaintiff in brief is that, as per two separate Memorandum of Understandings dated 25.06.2012 entered into 5 O.S.No.196 /2017 between himself and the defendant he agreed to purchase two flats which the defendant has undertaken to construct and paid Rs.14,00,000 to the defendant as part sale consideration. But the defendant failed to construct the flat and to hand over the possession of the flat to the plaintiff as per terms of said Memorandum of Agreement. As such the plaintiff approached the defendant for cancellation of MOU and sought for refund of money paid by him together with interest, but the defendant did not repay the same. As on the date of filing of the suit along with interest a sum of Rs.25,34,000/- is due and outstanding from the defendant. Hence according to the plaintiff, the plaintiff has been constrained to file the suit.
9. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as Pw.1 and got marked one document as Ex.P.1. Pw.1 in his affidavit filed towards examination-in-chief has reiterated the averments made in the plaint.
10. Ex.P.1 is the Memorandum of Understandings entered into between plaintiff and defendant. As per Ex.P.1 a sum of Rs.14,00,000/- was paid through Cheque by the plaintiff to the defendant. 6 O.S.No.196 /2017
11. Since inspite of service of summons, the defendant has not appeared before the Court, the defendant was placed ex-parte. As such averments in the plaint, the oral vidence of Pw.1 and Ex.P.1 remains unrebutted and unchallenged. The plaint averments, the oral evidence of Pw.1 coupled with Ex..P.1 clearly establishes the payment of Rs.14 lakhs by the plaintiff to the defendant.
12. In this suit the plaintiff has claimed Rs.14,00,000/- as principal amount and Rs.11,34,000/- as interest. But how the plaintiff is entitled for Rs.11,34,000/- towards interest has not been averred in the plaint. The Memorandum of Understanding is silent as to rate of interest. There is no agreement between the parties regarding the rate of interest. Under these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that amount of Rs.11,34,000/- claimed by the plaintiff as interest is exorbitant. Under the fact and circumstances of the case and rate under which monies are lent by the Nationalized Bank, the plaintiff is only entitled for simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the principal amount from the date of Memorandum of Understanding i.e., from 25.06.2012. Hence, point No.1 is answered partly in the Affirmative.
7 O.S.No.196 /2017
13: POINT NO.2: In view of the above discussions and my finding to the Point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiff is hereby partly decreed with costs.
The defendant is hereby directed to pay
Rs.14,00,000/- (Rupees Fourteen lakhs only)
to the plaintiff along with interest at 10% per annum from 25.06.2012 till realization. Draw decree accordingly.
*** [Dictated to the Judgment Writer, Scripted by her and then corrected, signed and pronounced by me, in the Open Court on this the 15th day of March, 2017).
[Parameshwara Prasanna.B.] LXII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge BANGALORE.
SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of the bearing Survey No.130/3, measuring to an extent 33 guntas, situated at Horamavu village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore bounded on the :
East by : Road and Land bearing No.130/3,
West by : Munikrishnappa land bearing No.130/1,
North by : Muniraju land bearing No.130/4,
South by : C.Harish's land bearing No.130/3 & Sy.No.130/2B.
8 O.S.No.196 /2017
ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Plaintiff/s:
PW.1 K.Ravi Kumar,
2. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the
Defendant/s:
NIL
3. List of documents marked on behalf of the Plaintiff/s:
Ex.P1 - Memorandum of Understanding
4. List of documents marked on behalf of the defendant/s:
-NIL-
[Parameshwara Prasanna.B.] LXII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge BANGALORE.9 O.S.No.196 /2017