Case Note & Summary
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. The appellant, Maruti Dhondi Patil and Sandip Tukaram Patil, were the defendants in the original suit. The respondent, Indrajit Rajaram Mane, was the plaintiff who had filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 22nd July 2008. The Trial Court decreed the suit for specific performance but granted the alternate relief of refund of earnest money with interest. The First Appellate Court confirmed the decree. The appellant then filed the present Second Appeal. The only substantial question of law raised was 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. The appellant's counsel argued that in the absence of a 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 counsel, dismissed the Second Appeal, holding that the suit for specific performance was maintainable and the alternate relief of refund of earnest money could be granted. The Court found no substantial question of law involved.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act - Alternate Relief - Refund of Earnest Money - The Court considered whether the alternate relief of refund of earnest money could be granted in a suit for specific performance without a specific prayer for declaration that cancellation of agreement was illegal. The Court held that the suit for specific performance was maintainable and the alternate relief of refund of earnest money could be granted. (Paras 1-3)
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. The judgment and decree dated 17th April 2025 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.318 of 2017 is confirmed.
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) 130
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 confirming decree for refund of earnest money with interest in a suit for specific performance.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to challenge the judgment and decree directing 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 concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court granting alternate relief of refund of earnest money with interest in a suit for specific performance.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court decreed the suit for specific performance granting alternate relief of refund of earnest money with interest. First Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No.318 of 2017 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decree.
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
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the absence of a prayer for declaratory relief, the suit for specific performance itself was not maintainable. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sangita Sinha v. Bhavana Bhardwaj & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 72, particularly paragraphs 25, 26 and 27.
Ratio Decidendi
The suit for specific performance is maintainable even without a specific prayer for declaration that cancellation of agreement was illegal, and the alternate relief of refund of earnest money 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.
Procedural History
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 22nd July 2008. The Trial Court decreed the suit granting alternate relief of 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 on 9th July 2026.
Acts & Sections
- Specific Relief Act, 1963:
