The principle of unjust enrichment mandates that a party acknowledging receipt of money must return it, particularly when a valid contract was implied.

JUDGMENT

Unsuccessful defendants 2 and 3 have preferred the present appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.06.2019 passed in O.S.No.118 of 2011 on the file of IV Additional District Court, Tiruvallur at Ponneri, insofar as granting an alternate relief of refund of advance amount with interest is concerned. The plaintiff has not preferred any appeal against the dismissal of the suit for the relief of specific performance.

2. Suit is filed for specific performance of the contract or in alternative, to refund of the earnest money together with interest. The trial Court negatived the relief of specific performance and granted the alternative relief of refund of the advance amount with interest.

3. The parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.

4. The brief case of the plaintiff is as follows:

The plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 3 have entered into an agreement of sale on 01.08.2008. On the same day, the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.10,10,000/- as an advance. The total sale consideration was fixed at Rs.49,35,000/-. The defendants undertook to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.39,25,000/- to execute and register the sale deed on or before 31.10.2008. The plaintiff has approached the defendants 1 to 3 with the balance sale consideration and requested them to produce the original title deeds for perusal and to prepare the sale deed. Though the defendants 1 to 3 promised to produce the original title deeds, postponed the same by giving elusive reasons. Subsequently, the defendant 1 to 3 have demanded a further sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and undertook to produce the original tittle deeds and agreed to extend three months time to execute the sale deed. The plaintiff believing the words of the defendants 1 to 3 had paid the said sum on 04.03.2009 and at that time, the second defendant alone was available and hence, she alone signed in the agreement in the presence of the witness. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The plaintiff came to know that the defendants 1 to 3 in collision with the fourth defendant have conveyed the property to the defendants 5 to 8 under two sale deeds. The plaintiff on 17.06.2011 has issued notice to the defendants calling upon them to receive the balance sale consideration and to execute the sale deed. The said notice was duly acknowledged by the defendants 4 to 8 and for the defendants 1 to 3 it had been returned with the endorsement “no such addressee”. The defendants 5 to 8 have sent reply through their counsel on 27.06.2011. Hence the suit.

5. The written statement filed by the second defendant was adopted by the defendants 3 and 4, wherein, it has been stated that the plaintiff is not known to the defendants 1 to 3. The first defendant Lakshmi died on 10.04.2015 due to ailment. One Velu of Redhills was introduced by the brokers Rajamani, Murali and Jeyachandran. The said Velu along with the brokers inspected the suit property and agreed to purchase the suit schedule property and had paid a sum of Rs.10,001/- as token advance and in the end of July, the said Velu came to the house of the defendants 1 to 3 and advanced a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. On the aforesaid date, the said Velu had never obtained any signature from the defendants 1 to 3. After several days, the said Velu came to their house and obtained signatures from the defendants 1 to 3. Believing his words, the defendants 1 to 3 put the thumb impression and the signature in the agreement. Even on the said day, the plaintiff was not present in-person. Thereafter, the second defendant was admitted in hospital for treatment and after discharge, the second defendant asked to complete the sale, for which,