TIRUMANI VENKATA NARSAMMA Vs. VODUGU MAHALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second appeal is coming under the caption of "Dismissal and that at 10.40 a.m., the matter was dismissed for default, but immediately Sri Rajasekhar representing Sri Chandrasekhar learned Counsel for appellants made a request that he is prepared to argue the matter and also made a request that the order dismissing the second appeal for default may be recalled. Sri Y.V. Srinivasan, learned Counsel representing Sri Chidambaram learned Counsel for respondent, who is present in the Court, reported no objection and hence the said order is hereby recalled since the same was not signed by that time.

(2.) Sri Rajasekhar learned Counsel representing the appellants-defendants had pointed out that in the light of the substantial questions of law, which had been raised, the crucial question which may have to be decided is that when the agreement of sale as such is a void transaction, can the refund of amount be ordered in the facts and circumstances of the case. While elaborating his submissions, the learned Counsel had taken this Court through the evidence available on record and had pointed to the relevant portions and would maintain that certain of the admissions made would clearly go to show that the parties had knowledge about the nature of the land even on the date of the transaction and in view of the same, ordering refund is definitely bad in law. The learned Counsel pointed out to the substantial questions of law raised on the strength of which the second appeal was admitted and also further placed reliance on certain decisions.

(3.) Per contra, Sri Srinivasan, learned Counsel representing Sri Chidambaram, learned Counsel representing the respondent- plaintiff would maintain that on appreciation of evidence of PWs.1 to 4, DWs.1 to 3, Exs.A1 to A7 and Exs.B1 to B7 and Exs.C1 and C2, both the Courts came to the conclusion that both in law and equity, refund to be ordered and there is no legal infirmity or any illegality in such a decree which had been made by the Court of first instance and also the appellate Court. The Counsel also would submit that in the light of Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, even if the transaction to be treated as void, the opposite party is bound to compensate the same and hence absolutely there is no illegality in the order of refund made in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Counsel also relied upon certain decisions to substantiate his submissions.