IMPORTANT POINT
The court has discretion to award interest under Section 34 of the C.P.C. even if not specified in the contract, affirming the trial court's decree for interest on the principal amount.

JUDGMENT :

A. Badharudeen, J.

Defendant in O.S.No.190/2010 on the files of the Sub Court, Attingal, assails decree and judgment, dated 29.3.2014 in the above suit, in this appeal filed under Section 96 r/w Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the C.P.C.’ hereinafter). The respondent is the sole plaintiff in the suit.

2. The parties in this appeal shall be referred as 'plaintiff' and 'defendant' for brevity and convenience, hereafter.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the defendant/appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/respondent.

4. Summary of the case:

Plaintiff filed the suit seeking realisation of Rs.13,50,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakh Fifty Thousand only) from the defendant contending that the plaintiff paid the said amount on three occasions starting from 8.7.2009, towards advance sale consideration. The case of the plaintiff is that, the defendant agreed to sell 15 cents of property of Anupama and Anuja, who are the minor children of the defendant along with 3 cents of pathway to be purchased from one Lalitha, at the rate of Rs.1,60,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Thousand only) per cent. On the date of execution of the agreement for sale, Rs.3 Lakh was paid as advance. Thereafter, Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) more was given as advance sale consideration on 12.8.2009 and Rs.10 Lakh on 31.8.2009, for which, another receipt also was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, since the defendant failed to execute the sale deed, after obtaining permission of the District Court to sell the property of the minors and also failed to provide a pathway, as agreed upon, the contract failed to be performed by the defendant, though the plaintiff was ready to perform his part of contract. On this premise, the plaintiff sought the relief to get back the advance amount along with the interest.

5. Sole defendant entered appearance and filed written statement. Defendant denied execution of sale agreement as on 8.7.2009. The contents of Ext.A1 also was denied. According to the defendant, defendant borrowed Rs.3 Lakh from the plaintiff and executed a document styled in the form of an agreement of sale on 8.7.2009. On the date of execution of the agreement, the defendant gave a signed blank white paper to the plaintiff. The plaintiff fraudulently created a receipt, dated 31.8.2009 in the said signed blank white paper. Accordingly, receipt of Rs.3 Lakh admitted, while denying receipt of Rs.13,50,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakh Fifty Thousand only).

6. The trial court raised appropriate issues and tried the case. PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exts.A1 and A4 were marked on the side of the plaintiff. Defendant was examined as DW1.

7. On appreciation of evidence, the trial court granted decree as under:

“In the result, suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay an amount of Rs.14,71,500/- (Rupees Fourteen lakhs Seventy one thousand and five hundred only) together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.13,50,000/- from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till realization.”

8. While assailing the verdict of the trial court, the learned counsel for the defendant raised a contention that either in Ext.A1 agreement or in Ext.A2 receipt, there was no covenant to pay interest for the amount received and therefore, grant of 12% interest per annum on the principal amount by the trial court from the date of suit till the date of decree and grant of 6% interest per annum from the date of decree till realisation, is not legally permissible. Secondly, it is argued by the learned counsel for the defendant that, as regards receipt of Rs.10,50,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Fifty Thousand only), the defendant specifically denied the same and therefore, grant of decree for the said sum is erroneous and the same would require interference.

9. The learned counsel for the plaintiff strongly sup