Case Summary
The petitioners, K.Giridharan and Beena Giridhar, filed a petition to recover advance sale consideration of Rs.2,50,000 from the respondents due to misrepresentation regarding the property title. The respondents failed to execute the sale deed as agreed.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Defendants are directed to furnish security to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/-.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The petitioners' plea for recovering Rs.2,50,000 was allowed as the respondents failed to execute the sale deed and misrepresented the property's title.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiffs established their right to recover the advance amount paid, given that the respondents misrepresented the nature of the property.
The plaintiffs established their right to recover the advance amount paid, given that the respondents misrepresented the nature of the property.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiffs established their right to recover the advance amount paid, given that the respondents misrepresented the nature of the property.
The plaintiffs established their right to recover the advance amount paid, given that the respondents misrepresented the nature of the property.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioners have paid the amount as advance sale consideration in accordance with Exhibit A2 agreement. There is no dispute regarding the sale from the side of the respondents.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the petition is allowed. Defendants are directed to furnish security to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/-.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- K.Giridharan
- Party Age
- 53
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Beena Giridhar
- Party Age
- 48
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- V.V.George
- Party Age
- 69
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Rajeena Joseph
- Party Age
- 54
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Sijo@Vaghese Antony V.J.
- Party Age
- 32
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Jincy Joseph
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Jose Joseph
- Party Age
- 58
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Original of the Power of Attorney, Original Agreement for Sale, True copy of the Agreement acknowledging the receipt of Rs. 50,000 from the plaintiff, Copy of the lawyer notice issued to the defendants
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- K.K.Sathish
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- S.Shyam
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Defendants are directed to furnish security to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/-.
Evidence:
Accordingly, the point is found in favour of the petitioners. The petition is allowed.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Power of Attorney
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Original of the Power of Attorney submitted in support of the petition.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Agreement for sale
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Original Agreement for sale dated 01-03-2023 entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendants.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Receipt Acknowledgment
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
True copy of the Agreement acknowledging the receipt of Rs. 50,000/- from the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Lawyer Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of the lawyer notice issued to the defendants seeking return of the advance amount paid.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Recovery of money
Case Code
Case between K.Giridharan et al vs V.V.George et al regarding advance sale consideration recovery
Case Code Year
Case between K.Giridharan et al vs V.V.George et al regarding advance sale consideration recovery