Plaintiffs entitled to refund of advance but not compensation due to lack of evidence for expenses incurred.

JUDGMENT :

C. Pratheep Kumar, J.

The 1^st defendant in O.S. No. 415/2011 on the file of the Principal Sub Court Palakkad is the appellant. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the trial court).

2. The plaintiff filed the above suit for return of advance money and for compensation. Admittedly, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 entered into an agreement for sale with defendants 1 and 2 on 24.11.2010 and agreed to purchase an extent of 1.85 acres of property belonging to the defendants for a price of Rs.14,000/- per cent. On the date of the agreement itself, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid as advance to the defendants 1 and 2. As per the agreement executed between the parties on 24.11.2010 (Exhibit A1), the period for performance of the contract was six months. According to the plaintiff, before the expiry of the period provided for the performance the defendants had to convince the extent of the property to the plaintiffs and show all the original title deeds including prior title deed, possession certificate, tax receipt and encumbrance certificate. According to the plaintiffs, after the execution of Exhibit A1 agreement, they were permitted to improve the plaint schedule property and accordingly they had spent a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for levelling the said property. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants failed to convince the extent of the property and to show the original title deeds and hence a notice dated 12.5.2011 was issued to the defendants calling upon them to perform their part of the contract within ten days of the receipt of notice. The defendants sent a reply dated 20.5.2011 but threatened over telephone that they will not give the plaint schedule property to the plaintiffs. Apprehending that the defendants will not allow the plaintiffs to enjoy the plaint schedule property even if the sale deed is executed, the plaintiffs filed the suit for return of advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest @12% per annum.

3. The defendants 1 and 2 filed a written statement admitting the execution of the sale agreement but contending that the sale deed could not be executed due to the default of the plaintiffs and not due to the default of the defendants. They also denied the allegation in the plaint that the plaintiffs spent Rs.2,00,000/- for levelling the plaint schedule property. According to the defendants, all the documents demanded by the plaintiffs were sent along with the reply notice and in spite of that the plaintiffs were not willing to get the sale deed executed as their intention was to sell the property to others. Therefore, the defendants 1 and 2 prayed for dismissing the suit.

4. During the pendency of the suit, the defendants 1 and 2 assigned the plaint schedule property to the supplemental defendants 3 and 4 and hence they were subsequently impleaded in the suit. The trial court framed four issues. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimonials of PWs 1 and 2, DW1 and Exhibits A 1 to A5. After evaluating the evidence on record, the trial court decreed the suit directing the defendants 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.6,97,092/- along with interest @6% per annum, which includes Rs.5,00,000/- being the advance amount and Rs.1,97,092/- towards compensation. Aggrieved by the above judgment and decree of the trial court, the 1^st defendant preferred this appeal.

5. Now the points that arise for consideration are the following:

1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get a decree for return of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/-?

2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get a decree for compensation as prayed for?

3) Whether the impugned ju