Case Summary
The plaintiff, Govindan Nair K K, entered into an agreement with the defendant, Bose Raj B S, for the construction of the first floor of his residential building. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to complete the work as per agreement and demanded repayment of the excess amount paid.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit was dismissed as the plaintiff was found ineligible to make the claims due to the suit being barred by the law of limitation.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff failed to establish an excess payment and allowed the suit to become time-barred.
The plaintiff failed to establish an excess payment and allowed the suit to become time-barred.
Why Defendant Won:
Not available
Not available
Supporting Evidence
It could be presumed that the plaintiff had not paid any amount in excess to the defendant.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, Suit is dismissed.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Govindan Nair K K
- Party Age
- 57
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Bose Raj B S
- Party Age
- 41
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Power of Attorney, Contract Agreement, Receipts, E mail communication, Commission Report, Valuation Report
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- B Ashok
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Reshmi K M
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- M Narendrakumar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Siby Jacob Pampady
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Recovery
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Plaintiff sought to recover an amount of ₹3,15,000/- from the defendant.
Evidence:
Hence it could be held that the plaintiff could not establish that an amount of 3,50,000/- was paid in excess.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Power of Attorney
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Executed by the plaintiff in favour of his son Anand Unni.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Contract agreement
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Agreement for the construction of the first floor of the existing building of the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Email
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Email communication from the defendant about the completion of outside plastering.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Email
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Email communication from the plaintiff revoking the agreement and requesting refund.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Commission report about the construction work done at the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A9
Document Type:
Valuation Report
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Report detailing the work completed and its value, prepared by an engineer.
Reference:
Ext.A10
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Kottayam
Common Reasons
Non-payment of rent
Case Code
Case between Govindan Nair K K vs Bose Raj B S regarding realisation of money.
Case Code Year
Case between Govindan Nair K K vs Bose Raj B S regarding realisation of money.