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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
ORIGINAL SUIT No. 375 OF 2015

Case between Saidalavi vs Musthafa regarding return of advance money

Court
IN THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF OF TIRUR
Judge
Sri. JANKISH NARAYANAN
Order Date
2019-07-09
Duration

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Saidalavi, represented by P. Muhammed Kutty, filed a suit against Musthafa seeking the return of advance money paid for the purchase of property. The plaintiff claims he is entitled to a refund due to the defendant's failure to execute a sale deed as agreed.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendant to refund the advance amount paid by the plaintiff along with interest. The court also stated that the defendant must pay the costs of the suit.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Refund of Rs. 5,50,000/- with interest of 12% from the date of plaint till realization.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff was not in breach of the agreement and demonstrated entitlement to a refund due to the defendant's non-performance.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is decreed as follows: (I) The plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 5,50,000/- (Five Lakh and Fifty Thousand only) from the defendant with interest of 12% thereon from the date of plaint till realization.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Saidalavi (54 years) Kunnathoduvil House, Edayur amsom desom, Tirur Taluk P.Muhammed Kutty (Age not specified years) Palakkal House, Edayur .P.O., Tirur Taluk

Defendants

Musthafa (43 years) Valiyaparambil House, Edayur amsom Poovathumthara desom, Tirur Taluk

Reliefs

Relief Type: Recovery
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The plaintiff requested the refund of advance money paid towards the agreement.
Evidence:
Therefore, the plaintiff is not bound to purchase the remaining property under Ext.A5 agreement.
Relief Type: Cost
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The costs of the suit were to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff.
Evidence:
the defendant shall pay the costs of the suit to the plaintiff.
Relief Type: Charge
Outcome: Granted
Description:
There shall be a charge on the plaint schedule property for the decreed amount.
Evidence:
There shall be a charge on the plaint schedule property for the decreed amount.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Partition Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The document establishes the plaintiff's entitlement to the property as per partition.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Jenm Assignment Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document is crucial as it shows that the defendant had assigned part of the property in question prior to the sale agreement.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Lawyer Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The notice details terms related to the sale and the expectations from both parties.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Reply Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document represents the plaintiff's formal response to claims made by the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Sale Agreement
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The agreement lays out the terms of the sale, including payment details and obligations.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Encumbrance certificate
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
This document is presented to support the defendant's claim regarding the property.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Oral Evidence
Submitted By: Unknown
Relevance:
Oral testimonies were presented by witnesses on both sides regarding the case.
Reference:

Quick Facts

Location
Tirur Taluk
Case Filed
Outcome Confidence
95%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases