Case Note & Summary
The present Second Appeal was filed by the appellant, Maruti Dhondi Patil and Sandip Tukaram Patil, challenging the judgment and decree dated 17th April 2025 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.318 of 2017. The lower appellate court had dismissed the appeal and confirmed the trial court's decree directing refund of earnest money to the plaintiff, Indrajit Rajaram Mane, together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of execution of the agreement dated 22nd July 2008 till its realization. The appellant, represented by Mr. Chetan Patil, submitted that the only substantial question of law was whether the courts below were justified in decreeing the suit for specific performance by granting the alternate relief of refund of earnest money with interest, in the absence of a prayer seeking a declaration that the termination/cancellation of the agreement was illegal. The appellant argued that without such declaratory relief, the suit for specific performance itself was not maintainable, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Sangita Sinha v. Bhavana Bhardwaj & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 72, particularly paragraphs 25, 26, and 27. The Court, after hearing the submissions, found no merit in the appeal. It held that the alternate relief of refund of earnest money could be granted even without a specific prayer for declaration that the cancellation was illegal. The Court noted that the suit was for specific performance and the alternate relief of refund was granted, which was permissible. Consequently, the Second Appeal was dismissed at the admission stage itself, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Specific Performance - Alternate Relief - Refund of Earnest Money - Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 20 - The appellant challenged the decree for refund of earnest money with interest granted in a suit for specific performance, arguing that without a prayer for declaration that cancellation of agreement was illegal, the suit was not maintainable. The Court held that the alternate relief of refund could be granted even without such declaratory prayer, and dismissed the appeal. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Courts below were justified in decreeing the suit for specific performance by granting the alternate relief of refund of the earnest money along with interest, in the absence of a prayer seeking a declaration that the termination/cancellation of the agreement was illegal?
Final Decision
The Second Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- Alternate relief
- Refund of earnest money
- Declaration of illegality of cancellation
- Maintainability of suit without declaratory relief
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (07) 99
Second Appeal No. 475 of 2025
Mr. Chetan G. Patil a/w. Mr. Gajraj A. Mali, Advocate for Appellant.
Maruti Dhondi Patil and Sandip Tukaram Patil
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Second Appeal against judgment and decree in Regular Civil Appeal No.318 of 2017, which confirmed trial court's decree for refund of earnest money with interest in a suit for specific performance.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to challenge the decree for refund of earnest money with interest, arguing that the suit for specific performance was not maintainable without a prayer for declaration that cancellation of agreement was illegal.
Filing Reason
Appellant challenged the judgment and decree dated 17th April 2025 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.318 of 2017, whereby the appeal was dismissed and the decree for refund of earnest money with interest was confirmed.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court decreed refund of earnest money with interest at 6% per annum from 22nd July 2008 till realization. Regular Civil Appeal No.318 of 2017 was dismissed by the lower appellate court on 17th April 2025.
Issues
Whether the Courts below were justified in decreeing the suit for specific performance by granting the alternate relief of refund of the earnest money along with interest, in the absence of a prayer seeking a declaration that the termination/cancellation of the agreement was illegal?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant submitted that in the absence of a prayer for declaratory relief, the suit for specific performance itself was not maintainable, relying on Sangita Sinha v. Bhavana Bhardwaj & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 72, paragraphs 25, 26, and 27.
Ratio Decidendi
In a suit for specific performance, the court can grant the alternate relief of refund of earnest money with interest even without a specific prayer for declaration that the cancellation of the agreement was illegal. The suit for specific performance is maintainable and the alternate relief can be granted.
Judgment Excerpts
The present Second Appeal challenges the judgment and decree dated 17th April 2025 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.318 of 2017, whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant came to be dismissed and the decree passed by the learned Trial Court directing refund of the earnest money to the plaintiff, together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of execution of the agreement dated 22nd July 2008 till its realization, came to be confirmed.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that, in the absence of a prayer for declaratory relief, the suit for specific performance itself was not maintainable.
The Court finds no merit in the appeal. The alternate relief of refund of earnest money could be granted even without a specific prayer for declaration that the cancellation was illegal.
Procedural History
The suit for specific performance was filed by the plaintiff (respondent) seeking specific performance of an agreement dated 22nd July 2008. The trial court decreed refund of earnest money with interest. The appellant filed Regular Civil Appeal No.318 of 2017, which was dismissed on 17th April 2025. The appellant then filed the present Second Appeal No.475 of 2025, which was dismissed at the admission stage on 9th July 2026.
Acts & Sections
- Specific Relief Act, 1963: Section 20
