NOOR MOHAMED Vs. MOHAMED KARMULLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant challenges in this first appeal the decree for payment of damages of rs. 15,000/- to him the plaintiff for construction of the suit shop, though the suit for possession was dismissed. The plaintiff having not filed cross-objections, the decree has become final and this appeal itself is confined only to awarding of interest at 18% per annum. It is made clear by the order of this court dated 27-9-1989. Therefore, the question is whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest at 18% per annum for the amount given by him for the construction of the shop.

(2.) PLAINTIFF 1 is the son of plaintiff 2 and they wanted to do some business, and hence they were in need of a shop. Defendant was about to purchase a premises at kalasipalyam and he wanted to construct shop therein. So on 28-3-1980, plaintiff 1 and defendant entered into an agreement of lease. In that agreement, the defendant agreed to lease the suit shop to be constructed to the plaintiff within two months and for that purpose a sum of Rs. 15,000/- was paid. But after the construction, when the defendant did not lease out the shop, the suit came to be filed for possession as well as for recovery of damages of Rs. 300/- per mensem till the date of delivery of possession.

(3.) THE trial court, however, found that the plaintiff is not entitled to possession, but entitled to refund of only Rs. 15,000/ -. As the defendant had the benefit of money from 28-3-1980, without the plaintiff deriving my advantage thereof, the trial court has chosen to grant interest at 8% per annum.