The Union of India (UOI) vs V. Balakrishnan, Proprietor, Korayar Rice Mill

S. Tamilvanan, J.—This First Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree made in O.S. No. 45 of 1990, dated 18.02.1994, on the

file of the Sub-Court, Tiruchirappalli.

The appellant herein is the plaintiff in the suit. The suit was filed seeking a decree, directing the respondent/defendant to pay the

appellant/plaintiff, a sum of Rs. 56,382/- with interest and cost.

As per the impugned judgment dated 18.02.1994, the court below has decreed the suit only for a sum of Rs. 19,162/- in respect of

maintenance charges and rent, to be paid with interest at 10% p.a from 28.02.1995 to till the date of filing of the plaint, along with subsequent

interest at 6% p.a from the date of filing of the plaint till the date of payment with Licence Fee of Rs. 600/-. Aggrieved by this judgment, the

appellant/plaintiff has preferred this First Appeal.

Mr. S. Manohar, Standing Counsel appearing for the Railways ,the appellant herein, submitted that the respondent/defendant has to pay

dismantling charges at Rs. 10,200/- apart from interest. The learned Counsel for the appellant further contended that though the interest claimed by

the appellant herein was 18% p.a. the court below has awarded only 10%p.a. for the aforesaid amount of Rs. 10,200/-from 28.2.1995, till the

date of filing of the plaint and subsequent interest at the rate of 6%p.a. from the date of plaint, till the date of payment and also pleaded for allowing

this first appeal.

Per contra, Mrs. Krishnaveni, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that as per the agreement entered into between the

appellant and the respondent, the appellant could have dismantled the railway lines, which had been extended up to the factory of the respondent

and could have handed over the materials to the respondent, since the respondent is the owner of the same. However, without dismantling the

railway line and handing over the materials belongs to the respondent, the appellant has claimed dismantling charges, hence the claim is not legally

sustainable. It is not in dispute that the railway line was not in use, for about 24 years. There is no evidence to show that the same was dismantled

by the appellant. Though the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the Railways have dismantled and removed the railway

lines, admittedly there is no evidence to show that the railway lines extended to the Rice Mill belongs to the respondent, were removed and handed

over to the respondent, herein.

In such circumstances, I am of the view that the appellant is not entitled to claim any dismantling charges. Considering the same, the court below

negatived the claim made by the appellant.

The trial court as per the impugned judgment, directed the respondent/defendant herein to pay a sum of Rs. 19,762/-towards maintenance

charges (Rs. 19,162 + Rs. 600/-Licence Fee) with interest at 10% p.a, from 28.02.1995 till the date of filing of the suit and subsequent interest at

6% p.a from the date of filing of the suit, till the date of making payment. Considering the facts and circumstances, the rate of interest was decided

by the court below. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the interest decided by the court below is the discretion of the court below based on

the facts and circumstances of the case. As there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment and decree in deciding the interest, I am of

the view that the same need not be interfered with in this First Appeal. Accordingly, the First Appeal fails and the same is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, the First Appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.