In a landmark interpretation of Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the Supreme Court of India has clarified that the relief of refund for an advance payment made towards sale consideration cannot be granted unless specifically prayed for in the plaint. The ruling reiterates the critical importance of precise pleading and the procedural necessity to explicitly include all forms of relief sought by a plaintiff.
Key Ruling: No Suo Motu Refund of Advance Without Express Prayer
The bench, comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, emphasized that courts do not have the power to grant such relief suo motu (on their own motion) if the prayer for refund is absent in the original plaint. The judgment underscores that Section 22(2) of the Specific Relief Act empowers plaintiffs to seek an amendment to their pleadings at any stage of the proceedings to incorporate such reliefs, including the refund of earnest or advance money.
“The plaint may be amended at any stage of the proceedings to enable the plaintiff to seek an alternative relief, including that of refund of earnest money… However, under Section 22, the courts cannot grant such relief suo moto, since the inclusion of the prayer clause remains a sine qua non,” the Court observed.
Case Background: K.R. Suresh vs. R. Poornima & Ors.
Case Title: K.R. Suresh vs. R. Poornima & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 522
The case involved an appeal where the Appellant sought a refund of advance money paid as part of the sale consideration after the agreement to sell failed. The earnest money had already been forfeited, and the Appellant claimed a refund of the remaining advance amount.
However, this refund was not prayed for in the original plaint, leading the Supreme Court to dismiss the relief request on procedural grounds.
Plaintiff Must Specifically Seek Refund Under Section 22 SRA
Rejecting the Appellant’s contention that a separate prayer was unnecessary, the Court held that no refund of either advance or earnest money can be granted without an express claim under Section 22 of the SRA. The bench explained that when a party seeks specific performance of a contract, and fails to fulfill its terms, they cannot subsequently claim a refund of the consideration unless that relief has been sought formally.
Moreover, the Court noted that the Appellant did not attempt to amend the plaint under Section 22(2) to include a prayer for refund. Such an omission proved fatal to the claim.
Section 22 Specific Relief Act: A Quick Overview
- Section 22(1) permits a plaintiff to claim additional reliefs like possession, partition, or refund of earnest money in suits for specific performance.
- Section 22(2) provides the liberty to amend the plaint to include these reliefs at any stage of the suit.
However, courts cannot presume or imply such reliefs unless explicitly pleaded.
Exception: Where Relief Flows Naturally from Decree
The Court also made an important distinction while referring to its earlier ruling in Manickam @ Thandapani vs. Vasantha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 395. In that case, it was held that delivery of possession does not require a separate prayer, as it is a natural consequence of a decree for specific performance.
However, the present case did not fall within such an exception, because a refund is not a necessary implication of specific performance—especially when the buyer defaults.
Court’s Take on Earnest Money Forfeiture
Further, the Court reiterated that the forfeiture of earnest money is not penal in the ordinary sense and hence does not invoke Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The clause of forfeiture is a standard contractual term and has legal sanctity unless the contract is proven unconscionable or unjust.
“Forfeiture of earnest money upon failure to perform contractual obligations does not automatically attract penalty provisions under the Contract Act,” the Court noted.
Takeaways for Legal Practitioners and Litigants
This judgment is significant for real estate disputes, contract enforcement cases, and civil suits involving sale agreements, as it reiterates:
- Reliefs must be explicitly prayed for in the plaint.
- Courts cannot grant relief not pleaded, even if equity seems to demand it.
- Plaintiffs can and should amend their plaint under Section 22(2) if circumstances change during litigation.
- Failure to seek such amendment may result in complete denial of relief.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in K.R. Suresh vs. R. Poornima & Ors. is a vital precedent on the procedural sanctity of pleadings under the Specific Relief Act. It serves as a reminder to all litigants and counsel that even equitable reliefs like refund of advance money must be specifically pleaded, and the failure to do so cannot be cured by assumptions or judicial sympathy. Section 22 remains a critical provision demanding precision and procedural diligence.
