##PAGE1##

SARITA RANI

2026.04.02 18:09 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

RSA No.2588 of 2023 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:051263

3. The plain(cid:12)ff pleaded that she had remained present in the office of Sub Registrar on the s(cid:12)pulated date along with the balance sale considera(cid:12)on, but the defendant failed to execute the sale deed. It was further alleged that the defendant had also entered into another agreement with a third party in respect of the same property, which resulted in a dispute, rendering the (cid:12)tle clouded and the performance of the agreement

uncertain.

4. The defendant contested the suit by asser(cid:12)ng that she was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract and that it was the plain(cid:12)ff who failed to appear for execu(cid:12)on of the sale deed. The receipt

of earnest money, however, was not denied.

5. On the basis of pleadings and evidence led by the par(cid:12)es, the learned trial Court decreed the suit holding that the plain(cid:12)ff was en(cid:12)tled to recovery of the earnest money along with interest. The first appellate Court, upon reappraisal of the en(cid:12)re evidence, affirmed the findings of the trial

Court and dismissed the appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that both the Courts below have misread the evidence and that once the defendant was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract, the earnest money was liable to be forfeited. It is contended that the findings recorded are perverse

and liable to be set aside.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

8. At the outset, it needs to be no(cid:12)ced that the present appeal arises out of concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. It is well se,led that in exercise of jurisdic(cid:12)on under Sec(cid:12)on 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, interference is warranted only when a substan(cid:12)al ques(cid:12)on

of law arises.

9. From the record, it is evident that the execu(cid:12)on of the agreement to sell and receipt of earnest money of ₹40,000/- by the defendant stand admi,ed. The only controversy revolves around the

en(cid:12)tlement of the plain(cid:12)ff to seek refund of the said amount.

SARITA RANI

2026.04.02 18:09 I attest to the accuracy Page 2 of 3 of this document/order

RSA No.2588 of 2023 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:051263

10. Both the Courts below have concurrently found, on apprecia(cid:12)on of evidence, that prior to the s(cid:12)pulated date for execu(cid:12)on of the sale deed, disputes had arisen regarding the suit property on account of a compe(cid:12)ng claim by a third party. The material on record further reveals that complaints and counter-complaints were lodged, and even criminal proceedings were

ini(cid:12)ated against the defendant.

11. In such circumstances, the property had become encumbered and its (cid:12)tle clouded. The defendant, therefore, was not in a posi(cid:12)on to convey a clear and marketable (cid:12)tle to the plain(cid:12)ff. The finding recorded by the Courts below that there was no fault a,ributable to the plain(cid:12)ff is based

on evidence and cannot be termed as perverse.

12. It is also significant that there was no s(cid:12)pula(cid:12)on in the agreement regarding forfeiture of earnest money. In absence of such a clause, and par(cid:12)cularly when the contract could not be performed due to circumstances a,ributable to the defendant, reten(cid:12)on of earnest money

would result in unjust enrichment.

13. The Courts below have rightly applied equitable principles in direc(cid:12)ng refund of the earnest money along with reasonable interest. The reasoning is sound, legally sustainable, and does not suffer from any

infirmity.

14. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any illegality, perversity, or misapplica(cid:12)on of law in the judgments under challenge. No substan(cid:12)al ques(cid:12)on of law arises for considera(cid:12)on in the

present appeal.

15. Conseque