N CHENCHULAKSHMI Vs. G PRASANNA LAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a suit filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.10, 70,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs and seventy thousand only) towards damages from the defendant and for recovery of interest at 24% per annum on Rs.5, 70,000/- (Rupees five lakhs and seventy thousand only) from the date of plaint, till the date of realisation, with costs.) THIS is a suit for claiming damages from the defendant.

(2.) BROADLY but briefly, narratively but precisely, the case of the plaintiff as stood exposited from the plaint could be portrayed thus: The plaintiff is the owner of the property situated in Survey No,348/2, measuring an extent of 11,900 sq.ft with a super structure there on. On 17.04.1998, an agreement was emerged between the plaintiff and the defendant on certain terms and conditions set out therein, whereby the defendant was expected to construct flats and deliver possession of the same to the plaintiff within two years. It is also one of the clauses in the agreement that the plaintiff should hand over the old existing super structure over an extent of 2400 sq.ft in the said larger extent on or before 31.05.1998 so as to enable the builder to put up flats. Accordingly, the plaintiff handed over possession of the said property to the defendant on 31.05.1998 thereat the defendant demolished the said old super structure and removed the teak wood materials available in the said building. To the shock and surprise of the plaintiff, thereafter, there was no progress in making construction by the defendant, who as per the said agreement earlier agreed to pay also a sum of Rs.10,000/- p.m to the plaintiff till the defendant completes the construction and hands over possession. The conduct of the defendant, necessitated and propelled, actuated and accentuated the plaintiff to issue her notice dated 16.02.2001 terminating the said agreement and calling upon the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs as damages for the loss sustained by the plaintiff. After handing over possession of the said property to the defendant for effecting construction, the plaintiff was constrained to occupy a tenanted premises. The plaintiff after such termination of the said agreement, entered into a fresh agreement with one another builder and got the flats constructed and occupied the same by March 2003. Till then, the defendant's liability to pay the sum of Rs.10, 000/- per month to the plaintiff accrued to an extent of 5,70,000/-. Had the defendant, as per the agreement performed her part of the contract and completed the construction of the flats, the plaintiff would not have sustained loss to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs. However, the plaintiff restricted her claim for damages to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs only under that count. The plaintiff therefore, filed the suit claiming a sum of Rs.5,70,000/- representing the arrears, which accrued due to non-payment of Rs.10,000/- every month from 01.06.1998 till 28.02.2003 and also for recovery of damages to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs totalling Rs.10,70,000/-.

(3.) TO what relief the parties are entitled? Gamut of the case:- 5. A 'resume' of facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this suit would run thus: