O.S. No. 435 /2015

Case between K A Gilson et al vs Dr. Saraumma @ Nedungattukudy Saidaly Saraumma regarding realization of money

Court

IN THE COURT OF MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM

Judge

Smt. Needi.K.Dinamany

Order Date

2025-03-21

Duration

approximately-9 years 6 months

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)

Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

This case involves K A Gilson and M T Manikandan, who are claiming a retention payment from Dr. Saraumma regarding a construction project that was not completed as per the agreement. The plaintiffs allege that the defendant has failed to pay them the agreed retention amount of Rs.6,85,333.29/-.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won

Interim Order

The court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs as they failed to prove their case, particularly regarding the payment of the retention amount. The court found that the plaintiffs did not complete the construction work as agreed.

Judgment Favored

Defendant

Relief Granted

Case Type

Civil Suit

Final Judgment

No

Key Reasoning:
The plaintiffs failed to prove that they completed their work adequately and did not rectify the defects within the specified time frame.

Judgment Evidence:

Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

K A Gilson (51 years) Door No.90 and 91, C C 40/7430-E, 3rd Floor, DD Bazar, Gopalaprabhu Road, Ernakulam Village, Kanayannur Thaluk, Ernakulam District M T Manikandan (49 years) Door No. 90 and 91, C C 40/7430-E, 3rd Floor, DD Bazar, Gopalaprabhu Road, Ernakulam Village, Kanayannur Thaluk, Ernakulam District

Defendants

Dr. Saraumma @ Nedungattukudy Saidaly Saraumma (55 years) Nedungattukudy House, Okkalkara, Chelamattom Village, Okkal P O, Ernakulam District, Pin- 683550

Reliefs

Relief Type: Recovery

Outcome: Refused

Description:

The plaintiff sought recovery of the retention amount withheld by the defendant.

Evidence:

Thus court is satisfied that plaintiffs have failed to prove their case. Hence suit is liable to be dismissed.

Relief Type: Costs

Outcome: Granted

Description:

The court was requested to award costs as the suit is dismissed.

Evidence:

Also court does not find any reason for not awarding costs.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Original letter with Notarized affidavit

Submitted By: Plaintiff

Relevance:

This document was presented as part of the plaintiff's evidence.

Reference:

Ext.A1

Document Type: True copy of Power of Attorney

Submitted By: Plaintiff

Relevance:

This document was presented as part of the plaintiff's evidence.

Reference:

Ext.A2

Document Type: True copy of Power of Attorney

Submitted By: Plaintiff

Relevance:

This document was presented as part of the plaintiff's evidence.

Reference:

Ext.A3

Document Type: True copy of agreement

Submitted By: Plaintiff

Relevance:

This document was presented as part of the plaintiff's evidence.

Reference:

Ext.A4

Document Type: The office original copy of letter

Submitted By: Plaintiff

Relevance:

This document was presented as part of the plaintiff's evidence.

Reference:

Ext.A5

Document Type: The letter acknowledging the retention amount

Submitted By: Plaintiff

Relevance:

This document was presented as part of the plaintiff's evidence.

Reference:

Ext.A6

Document Type: Agreement

Submitted By: Plaintiff

Relevance:

This document was presented as part of the plaintiff's evidence.

Reference:

Ext.A7

Document Type: The copy of work order issued by the defendant to plaintiff

Submitted By: Defendant

Relevance:

This document was used to demonstrate the terms of the contract and retention clauses.

Reference:

Ext.B1

Document Type: Copy of agreement between the defendant and M/s Buildtech

Submitted By: Defendant

Relevance:

This document was presented as part of the defendant's evidence.

Reference:

Ext.B2

Document Type: Copy of agreement

Submitted By: Defendant

Relevance:

This document was presented as part of the defendant's evidence.

Reference:

Ext.B3

Document Type: Report of Chartered engineer George F Chethalan

Submitted By: Defendant

Relevance:

This document was submitted to support the defendant's claims of defects in construction.

Reference:

Ext.B4

Document Type: Report of Chartered engineer George F Chethalan

Submitted By: Defendant

Relevance:

This document was submitted to support the defendant's claims of defects in construction.

Reference:

Ext.B5

Document Type: Consolidated statement of work and cost furnished by Ajithkumar T S

Submitted By: Defendant

Relevance:

This document was used to outline the costs incurred by the defendant due to unfinished work.

Reference:

Ext.B6

Document Type: Emails sent by the defendant to M/s Buildtech

Submitted By: Defendant

Relevance:

This document was presented to show communication between the parties.

Reference:

Ext.B7

Document Type: Certified copy of commission report in OS 880/2009 before Sub Court, Kochi

Submitted By: Defendant

Relevance:

This document was used to demonstrate legal action taken regarding construction damages.

Reference:

Ext.B8

Document Type: Copy of report submitted by Structural Engineer Suresh S M

Submitted By: Defendant

Relevance:

This document was presented to support the defendant's claims of structural issues.

Reference:

Ext.B9

Document Type: Inspection report

Submitted By: Defendant

Relevance:

This document was presented to support the defendant's claims of construction issues.

Reference:

Ext.B10