Advocates Appeared:
BY ADVS. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY SMT.SNEHA ROSE
BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER K.SHAJ ADV.KEVIN JAMES

Based on the provided legal document, the key facts are as follows:

1. The plaintiff entered into an agreement with the defendant to purchase a property for Rs.11,20,000, paying Rs.3 lakh as an advance or earnest money (!) .

2. The agreement stipulated that the sale deed was to be executed within five months, with the deadline being 02.02.2012. The plaintiff claims to have requested the defendant to execute the sale deed on 31.01.2012, personally informing the defendant and even reaching the sub-registrar’s office with the remaining consideration (!) (!) .

3. The defendant admits to the execution of the agreement but contends that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, citing alleged delays and financial issues faced by the plaintiff, including payments made to third parties for property purchases (!) (!) .

4. The plaintiff asserts that he was prepared and willing to complete the transaction and that the defendant’s reluctance to proceed justified the claim for the return of the advance amount (!) (!) .

5. The trial court found that the plaintiff demonstrated readiness and willingness to perform the contract, and that the defendant’s failure to execute the sale deed was unjustified, leading to a decree for the return of Rs.3 lakh with interest (!) .

6. The defendant’s defense included the argument that the agreement contained a clause permitting forfeiture of the advance if the plaintiff failed to perform, and that the plaintiff’s failure to execute the sale deed justified the forfeiture of the advance money (!) (!) .

7. The court clarified that for the forfeiture of earnest money or advance payment, the terms must be explicit, and the party seeking forfeiture must have improperly declined to accept delivery of the property. It was established that the plaintiff did not improperly decline delivery, as he was ready and willing, and the defendant was at fault (!) (!) .

8. The court also examined the nature of the payment, concluding that the advance amount was not merely part of the purchase price but was paid as earnest money, which, under the applicable law, could be forfeited only if the party failed to perform their contractual obligations properly (!) (!) .

9. The court noted that the defendant’s claim of loss due to payments made to third parties for property purchases was not sufficient to justify forfeiture, especially since the defendant could pursue those third parties directly (!) .

10. Ultimately, the court upheld the findings that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform and that the defendant’s failure to do so justified the return of the advance amount. The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court’s decree was confirmed (!) .

11. The defendant was also ordered to pay court fees within a specified period, and the appeal process included directions for recovery of the court fee if not paid (!) (!) .

In summary, the case revolves around whether the plaintiff properly declined to accept delivery of the property, justifying the return of the advance, and whether the defendant’s claim for forfeiture of the advance due to breach was valid. The court found that the plaintiff’s readiness and willingness negated the forfeiture claim, leading to the judgment in favor of the plaintiff.