KOCHOUSEPH Vs. KUNJU VAREED
LAWS(KER)-1963-4-3
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on April 05,1963

KOCHOUSEPH Appellant
VERSUS
KUNJU VAREED Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

KRISHNA,DATT V. BAM SARAN [REFERRED TO]
V. PEDDARANGASWAMI SHRESHTI VS. THE STATE OF MADRAS, REPRESENTED BY THE COLLECTOR OF BELLARY AND ANR. [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

AUGUSTI VS. JOSEPH [LAWS(KER)-1985-11-48] [REFERRED TO]
P. SUNDARA BHAT VS. DUGGAMMA [LAWS(KER)-2017-6-120] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This Civil Revision Petition by the plaintiff in Small Cause Suit No. 622 of 1960 of the Munsiff's Court of Irinjalakuda is directed against the decree in the suit and the order for compensatory costs passed against the plaintiff.
(2.)The suit was for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3.30 as jenmikaram and 5 nP as interest thereon. The defendant raised several contentions such as that the suit was premature, that the capacity of the para mentioned in the kanom deed was smaller than the standard para, that the price of paddy claimed was excessive, that the defendant had sent a sum of Rs. 3.46 by money order towards the plaint claim which the plaintiff refused to accept, that the court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and that the defendant should get his costs as the plaintiff had refused to accept the amount tendered and as the suit was filed to harass him. It was also stated in the written statement that the capacity of the para was a matter which had to be decided on evidence. The court below held that the "Ettuthappupara" which was the measure mentioned in the kanom deed was 22/23 of the Standard Para in capacity and that paddy was to be valued at Rs. 1.75 per standard para. The contention that the suit was premature was overruled. Instead of the sum of Rs. 3-30 claimed in the plaint, a decree was given for Rs. 2-16. The court awarded a sum of Rs. 15/- as compensatory costs, in addition to costs of the suit. The plaintiff has therefore preferred this Civil Revision Petition.
(3.)So far as the decree for Rs. 2.16 is concerned I do not see any reason to interfere. The main point for consideration is whether the order for compensatory costs should have been passed.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.