LexDEVAKI ANTHARJANAM versus SREEDHARAN NAMBOODIRI & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 10 S.C.R. 779 DEVAKI ANTHARJANAM V. SREEDHARAN NAMBOODIRI & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 3206 of 2006) JULY 7, 2009 [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] A B Kera/a Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act, 1959 - ss. 5(3) and 2(b) - Suit for recovery of possession of C immovable property - Defendants claimed compensation for improvements made by them in the property - Suit decreed - Compensation for improvements also adjudged in the decree - Execution petition - Additional compensation awarded by Executing Court ·in terms of s.5(3) for o improvements made in property after the date of decree - Revision petition against - High Court remitted the matter to Executing Court to assess claim for further compensation - Justification of - Held :On facts, not justified - The Executing Court assessed compensation with regard to improvements E after proper assessment thereof with aid and assistance of the Court Commissioner - Findings recorded by Executing Court were legal and valid - High Court committed manifest error of law and also exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with the said findings - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 115. F The appellant-landlady filed suit for recovery of possession of immovable property. In the written statement, the respondents-defendants claimed compensation for the improvements made by them in the suit property. The trial court decreed the suit and, on G basis of the report given by Court Commissioner aided by an expert, directed that the respondents would be entitled to receive compensation of Rs.1,35,0001-. The 779 H 780 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R. A decree, though challenged by the respondents, was upheld by the first appellate court as well as the High Court. Since despite the decree, and payment of compensation by appellant, the respondents did not vacate the suit property, the appellant filed execution B petition seeking their eviction. Respondents prayed for additional compensation in terms of Section 5(3) of the Kerala Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act, 1959 for improvements made to suit property after the date of decree. The Executing Court after coming to a C finding that the entire ground floor of the property was completed before the date of decree and that such factor escaped the notice of the earlier Commissioner and Expert appointP.d by Court for that purpose at the trial stage, made revaluation of the entire ground floor portion and directed the appellant to deposit an amount of D Rs.3, 12,000/- over and above the amount of Rs. 1,35,000/ - adjudged in the decree. Appellants deposited the additional amount of Rs.3, 12,000/- as well, but the respondents filed revision petition claiming further compensation for the improvements made. The High E Court remitted the matter to the Executing Court to assess the claim of respondents. Hence the present appeal. F Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1.1. It was p~inted out that the respondents were seeking payment of compensation for the improvements made despite an undertaking given by them before the Court that they would not claim any G value for the improvements made in the first floor of the property. Any construction made after the aforesaid undertaking cannot be said to be improvements made in the bonafide belief that they are entitled to make some improvements. [Para 23] [792-G-H; 793-A] H DEVAKI ANTHARJANAM ~ SREEDHARAN 781 NAMBOODIRI & ANR. '( 1.2. Even assuming for the purpose of argument that A the respondents could make some improvements even - after passing of the decree by the trial court, but they could not have made any improvement in the suit property by way of constructing the first floor and claim compensation for it when they had given a clear B undertaking that they would not claim any compensation towards value of the said construction made on the first floor. They also undertook that they would not claim anything on account of the construction of the room and the toilet in the first floor. They are bound by the aforesaid c undertaking given to the Court and they are not entitled to resile from the same subsequently and claim any compensation. When they filed an undertaking they definitely had the knowledge that they are not entitled to make any improvement thereon in view of the currency D of the order of injunction and therefore they proceeded to give such an undertaking which di
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.