Skip to main content
Niyamam AI- Beta Niyamam AI- Beta

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
ORIGINAL SUIT No. 64 OF 2015

Case between Hassan vs Kunhimuhammed regarding recovery of advance sale consideration.

Court
IN THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF OF TIRUR
Judge
Sri. JANKISH NARAYANAN
Order Date
2019-07-30
Duration

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

This case involves a suit for the return of an advance payment made for a property purchase. The plaintiff, Hassan, claims to have paid Rs. 4,00,000 as an advance for a property deal, which the defendant, Kunhimuhammed, allegedly failed to honor.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendant to refund the advance amount along with applicable interest.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
The plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest of 6% per annum from the date of suit till realization.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff proved that the agreement was duly executed and established his right to refund the advance paid.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is decreed as follows: (I)The plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 4,00,000/- (Four Lakh only) from the defendant with interest of 6% per annum thereon from the date of suit till realization.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Hassan (45 years) Nadakkavil House, Vadakkumbram amsom desom & Post, Tirur Taluk.

Defendants

Kunhimuhammed (48 years) Karanath Palliyalil House, Kattipparuthi amsom desom, P.O.Painkannur, Tirur Taluk.

Reliefs

Relief Type: Recovery
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 4,00,000/- from the defendant with interest.
Evidence:
In the result, the suit is decreed as follows: (I)The plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 4,00,000/- (Four Lakh only) from the defendant with interest of 6% per annum thereon from the date of suit till realization.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Sale Agreement
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Document evidencing the agreement for sale under which the plaintiff paid an advance to the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner assessing the value of the property.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
A follow-up commission report by the Advocate Commissioner.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type: Commission Plan
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Plan submitted by the Advocate Commissioner relevant to the property in question.
Reference:
Ext.C3

Quick Facts

Location
Tirur Taluk
Case Filed
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases