A developer cannot forfeit earnest money without demonstrating actual financial loss. When a contractual party in a weaker bargaining position is compelled to sign a settlement due to the other party's dominant status, the settlement is vitiated by coercion and does not extinguish the original legal claim.

Headnote:(A) Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Section 74 - Compensation for breach of contract - Forfeiture of earnest money - Requirement to prove actual loss. Forfeiture of money in the absence of evidence demonstrating actual financial loss caused by the breach of contract is not permissible. (Paras 114, 117)

(B) Contracts - Construction-linked payment plans - Obligation to serve demand notices - Burden of proof. Where payment obligations are contingent upon construction progress, the inability to provide the actual construction schedule or proof of service of demand notices invalidates the cancellation of an allotment. (Paras 78, 87)

(C) Settlement of claim - Coercion and undue influence - Doctrine of necessity - Whether a settlement executed under pressure from a party holding a dominant position is valid. An agreement entered into by a party in a weaker bargaining position under compulsion cannot be construed as a voluntary full and final settlement. (Paras 109, 111, 112)

Facts of the case:
A property buyer sought the recovery of money forfeited by a developer following the cancellation of a villa allotment. The developer argued the cancellation was based on the buyer's failure to adhere to the payment schedule and that the buyer had subsequently signed a full and final settlement agreement. The buyer contended that the payments were construction-linked, no demand notices were served, and the settlement had been signed under coercion and undue influence.

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the developer failed to establish the service of demand notices and did not produce evidence reflecting the actual progress of the construction. Consequently, the forfeiture was held to be illegal as the developer failed to satisfy the burden of proof regarding actual financial loss. The court further determined that the settlement agreement was vitiated by undue influence and coercion, rendering it non-binding.

Issues: The main issues were whether the payment obligations were tied to construction progress, whether the developer had the legal right to cancel the agreement and forfeit the earnest money, and whether the subsequent settlement agreement was voluntarily executed.

Ratio Decidendi: A party claiming the right to forfeit earnest money as liquidated damages must prove the actual loss suffered. Furthermore, a settlement agreement signed under economic duress or by a party in a significantly weaker bargaining position does not constitute a valid accord and satisfaction of prior claims.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The court held that cancellation of the allotment was illegal/arbitrary and that forfeiture of 18,00,000 was not justified; the plaintiff was entitled to refund (!) (!) (!) . - The settlement of 27.06.2009 was found to have been executed under undue influence and coercion, and not a voluntary, binding accord; thus it did not extinguish the original claim (!) (!) (!) . - The suit was decreed for 18,00,000 with interest, and damages claim was denied; the appellate challenge was dismissed (!) (!) (!) . - The contract terms allowed for cancellation and forfeiture only upon proven default and proper service of demand; however, service of demand notices was not proven, rendering default unestablished (!) (!) (!) . - The total amount paid by the plaintiff was Rs. 62 lakhs; Rs. 44 lakhs were refunded under the settlement, leaving Rs. 18 lakhs determined as illegal forfeiture (!) (!) (!) . - The finding that construction-linked installments could not be demanded without progress supports the plaintiff's position against premature payment demands (!) (!) (!) .

What is the legality of the cancellation of the villa allotment and the forfeiture of earnest money in this case?

What is the validity of the full and final settlement dated 27.06.2009 and whether it extinguishes the original claims?

What are the conditions under which a settlement is considered voluntary and binding in the context of alleged coercion or undue influence?

Table of Content
1. factual background involving breach of construction contract, unilateral cancellation, and coerced settlement. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
2. defendant's plea of breach by allottee, waiver, and binding nature of full and final settlement. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)
3. procedural framing of issues and evidentiary documentation. (Para 36 , 37 , 38)
4. construction-linked nature of payment obligations and onus of proof for construction progress. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83)
5. requirement of proof of service for demand notices in contractual dispute resolution. (Para 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88)
6. illegality of unilateral cancellation of allotment without valid demand proof. (Para 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96)
7. settlement reached under coercion and superior bargaining power lacks free consent. (Para 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113)
8. forfeiture of money under section 74 of the indian contract act requires proof of actual financial loss. (Para 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119)
9. final confirmation of decree for refund and dismissal of appeal. (Para 120 , 121)

JUDGMENT :

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. The Regular First Appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI CPC has been preferred against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.09.2019, whereby the Suit of the Plaintiff/Respondent has been decreed for a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- along with pendente lite and future interest @ 6% per annum.

2. The Plaintiff/Respondent had filed a Suit bearing No.9719/2016 for Recovery of Rs.52,71,118/- along with pendent lite and future interest.

3. The facts in brief, are that the Defendant, a Real Estate Developer and owner of land in Village Ghasola Badshahpur, District Gurgaon, Haryana, launched a residential project known as “Rosewood City” consisting of Duplex independent villas called “Grand Mansions”. The Plaintiff applied for a built-up villa, vide Application dated 22.02.2008 and paid Rs.10,00,000/-, as booking amount.

4. Subsequently, an Agreement to Sell dated 27.02.2008 was executed in respect of Villa No. C-01, admeasuring approximately 510.39 sq. yds., having a super built-up area of about 4900 sq. ft., for a total consideration of Rs.2,50,00,000/-.

5. The Plaintiff further paid a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- through cheque on 22.03.2008 and Rs.27,00,000/- through cheque on 30.06.2008. The Plaintiff thus, made a payment of total Rs.62,00,000/-, towards this Agreement dated 27.02.2008.

6. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the original documents relating to the allotment were lost during transit, which was intimated to the Defendant vide letter dated 12.03.2009, requesting it to supply of complete documents. Though some documents were supplied, the schedule of construction and specifications, were not provided despite repeated requests.

7. The Plaintiff alleged that upon visiting the site in September–October 2008, he found the construction to be slow and of inferior quality, whereupon he raised objections and sought either compliance with specifications or refund of his money.

8. The Defendant, however, assured completion of construction and persuaded the Plaintiff to continue with the project.

9. Although the payments were commensurate with the construction progress, the absence of an available construction schedule meant the Plaintiff could not determine the expected stage of completion, the actual work performed, or the specific due dates for instalments.

10. Despite this, the Defendant via letter dated 09.03.2009, unilaterally and arbitrarily cancelled the Plaintiff’s allotment. The Defendant further forfeited the earnest money of Rs. 62,00,000/-, which was 25% of the Villa’s composite price, in an illegal and wrongful manner.

11. "The Plaintiff sent reminders on 30.03.2009 an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Del) 584

What is the legality of the cancellation of the villa allotment and the forfeiture of earnest money in this case?

What is the validity of the full and final settlement dated 27.06.2009 and whether it extinguishes the original claims?

What are the conditions under which a settlement is considered voluntary and binding in the context of alleged coercion or undue influence?

Cases Referred (4)