JOSE A THOMAS Vs. KOOTHATTUKULAM PANCHAYATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs in O.S. No:151/1992 on the file of the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha is the appellant herein. Originally, the defendant was Koothattukulam Panchayat. At the time of filing the Original Suit, the Panchayat was converted as Koothattukulam Municipality. During the pendency of the suit, it was again converted as Koothattukulam Panchayat. The suit is for recovery of Rs.29,450/- with interest from the defendant. On 28.3.1989, the respondent herein issued an auction notice for auctioning the right to occupy the rooms constructed by the Panchayat in the market plot. The 2nd plaintiff was the highest bidder for room No. V in Block No. A conducted on 12.4.1989. As per the terms of contract, the 2nd plaintiff remitted Rs. 20,000/- as deposit and obtained receipt for the same. At the time of participating the auction proceedings, the respondent convinced the 2nd plaintiff and other participants that within one month from the date of auction, the construction of the room will be completed. The auction was for the period ending with 31.3.1990. Due to the misappropriation of money and neglect of the respondent the construction of the room was not completed as covenanted in the contract. The plaintiff was expected to pay rent from the date when the room was put in possession to the appellant. Since the construction of the room was not completed due to the neglect of the defendant, the defendant could not give possession to the plaintiff. After the auction, the plaintiff on many occasions requested for possession of the room. As the building was not completed, the plaintiff sustained heavy loss, since the business could not be started in time due to the negligent attitude of the defendant. On 5.9.1989, the 2nd plaintiff issued a notice to the defendant demanding the deposit amount and damages with interest. But the defendant neither sent any reply nor take any steps to comply the covenants of the auction proceedings. By that time the Panchayat was converted into Municipality. On 14.1.1992 a notice was issued to the Municipality demanding the amount with interest. The Municipality issued a reply stating that the matter was under consideration of the council and decision was awaited on the matter. Even thereafter no step was taken by the Municipality. In the meantime, the 2nd plaintiff was compelled to shift her residence to Palakkad. Therefore, the right to occupy the room was handed over to the first appellant with the consent of the defendant. The irresponsible attitude of the respondent in settling the dispute resulted in the Original Suit.

(2.) On 4.3.1993, the Municipality filed a written statement contending that the period of the agreement was extended. Neither the Panchayat nor the Municipality violated any terms in the agreement. The Municipality denied the notice issued by the 2nd plaintiff on 5.9.1989. The Municipality expressed their willingness to return the deposit amount except the rent for six months. But subsequently the Municipality was again converted as Panchayat and hence the present defendant is substituted. The defendant thereby filed another written statement contending that the suit is barred by law and limitation. The suit is not filed within six months from the date of cause of action. So the suit is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) On the basis of the pleadings, the court below raised five issues. On the side of the plaintiffs, PWs. 1 to 3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A4 marked. On the side of defendants, Exts. B1 to B3 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced. The court below after considering the evidence dismissed the suit. Against the said judgment and decree, this appeal is filed by the plaintiffs.