Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 4829
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Shanmugam S/o Malli Chettiar – Appellant
Versus
Subramanian S/o Srinivasa Chettiar – Respondent
Appeal Suit No.440 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.15923 of 2022
Decided On : 30-06-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : M/s Hema Sampah, Senior Counsel for Ms.R.Meenal
For the Respondents: Mr.P.Valliappan, Senior Counsel for Mr.P.V.Law Association for R1 to R3
Appellate courts can grant relief for unjust enrichment despite not having explicit pleadings if the evidence supports such a remedy.
Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, Section 22 - Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of C.P.C. for specific performance based on sale agreement - Trial Court granted alternate relief of refund of advance money instead of specific performance - Court upholds the trial Court's decision, affirming the alternate remedy based on evidence of consideration paid and absence of appeal by the defendants against the refund. (Paras 1-21)
(B) Pleadings and Relief - A party can seek amendment for alternate relief at any stage of the proceedings, including appellate stage; however, specific pleadings are generally required for the Court to grant such relief unless evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of a refund, as seen in this case.(Paras 8-11)
Facts of the case:
The appellant sought specific performance based on a sale agreement, having paid a substantial advance to the defendants, but the Court only granted a refund for the amount paid due to lack of specific relief in the initial pleadings.
Findings of Court:
The appellate Court reinforced the trial Court’s alternative relief of refund, noting that the defendants did not contest this ruling. The principle from relevant case law supports the plaintiff's right to equitable relief despite not explicitly pleading for it.
Issues: The main issue revolved around whether specific performance could be awarded given the payment made and the lack of explicit pleadings for alternative relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court determined that the absence of specific pleadings does not necessarily bar alternate relief if the claim for such relief is evident from the actions taken. The Court also conferred the ability to amend pleas at any stage (Provisions from CPC substantiated this).
Result: Appeal Suit dismissed, and trial court judgment confirmed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. arguments asserting specific performance versus alternate relief. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 2. respondents' contention on lack of specific prayer for refund. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. court’s evaluation of applicable laws and principles regarding pleadings and relief. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. final ruling and court's rationale for affirming alternate relief. (Para 11 , 12 , 19 , 21) |
JUDGMENT :
Appeal Suit has been filed by the plaintiff, who preferred the suit for specific performance based on the sale agreement dated 12.11.2018.
2. The trial Court, after considering the pleadings and appreciation of evidence, held that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of specific performance. However, having proved the passing of consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- to the defendants, the plaintiff is entitled for the alternative relief of refund of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a., and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the property till the realisation of the amount. Time for repayment of the decree amount was fixed as six months. The judgment and decree of the Court below, dated 30.06.2022, is the subject matter of the present appeal.
3.According to the appellant/plaintiff, the agreement marked as Ex.A1 is true and valid. The Court below ought to have granted the relief of specific performance. Instead, it had granted the alternate relief of refund of advance money. Having proved the ready and willingness to perform his part of contract, the relief of specific performance ought not to have been denied. Having paid a substantial portion of the sale consideration and balance was only Rs.1,00,000/-, the trial Court ought to have granted the relief of specific performance.
4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that the defendants, with an intention to sell the suit property had entered into the sale agreement on 12.11.2018 and agreed to sell the property for the price of Rs.11,00,000/-. An advance of Rs.10,00,000/- was paid on the same day with a condition that the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- will be paid within a period of six months from the date of sale agreement.
5. Despite expressing the readiness and willingness to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- and get the sale deed registered, the breach was on the part of the defendants to execute the sale deed receiving the balance sale consideration. While so, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the trial Court ought not to have declined the relief of specific performance.
6. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that there is no specific plea for alternate relief of refund in the plaint. However, the Court below had granted the alternate relief. The recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.R.Suresh v. R.Poornima and others reported in [2025 INSC 617], it is held that without prayer for the relief of refund of sale consideration, the alternate relief of refund cannot be granted. However, he fairly conceded that the respondents/defendants have accepted the judgment and not preferred any Appeal.
7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, in response, submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above said judgment had not foreclosed the right of the plaintiff for want of explicit prayer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that an amendment seeking alternate relief can be filed at any stage. Therefore, having filed the appeal against the denial of the larger relief of specific performance, there is no bar under statute to grant alternate relief in the absence of prayer and if it is necessary, the appellant may be permitted to make an application for amendment of the plaint.
8. This Court, after giving anxious consideration to the rival submissions and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in K.R.Suresh v. R.Poornima and others reported in [ 2025 INSC 617 ], is of the view that for the facts of the case in hand the dic
