A court cannot grant relief not claimed in the pleadings without an amendment, emphasizing the necessity of adhering to the issues raised in the plaint.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is filed against the Judgment and decree dated 20.02.2024 in O.S.No.149 of 2016 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Jangaon.

2. The suit vide O.S.No.149 of 2016 was filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff against appellant and respondent Nos.2 and 3/defendants for Specific Performance. The trial Court after considering the arguments of both sides dismissed the suit with costs and directed the appellant herein to return the advance money of Rs.21,00,111/- to respondent No.1 herein within three months from the date of the order along with interest @ 7% per annum. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, defendant No.1 in the suit preferred the present appeal.

3. Heard learned counsel for appellant. Notice issued to respondent No.1 returned as unclaimed and it is stated that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not necessary parties.

Perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for appellant stated that in the plaint, plaintiff has not sought for relief of refund of amount. The agreement of sale dated 30.05.2016 was terminated and the advance amount was forfeited. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the judgment of the trial Court.

5. A perusal of the record shows that there is no alternate relief of refund of the earnest money and even during the pendency of the proceedings, he has not taken any steps for amendment of the pleadings and relief portion and sought for refund of the earnest money. Learned counsel for appellant further stated that issue was not framed and the finding of the trial Court is contrary to the well settled principles of law. Unless there is specific alternate relief for refund of the amount, it need not be granted and he further stated that plaintiff was ready and was willing to perform his part of contract, as such he issued notice dated 20.10.2016 in which they terminated the contract. Caution notice was also given on 11.11.2016 in Eenadu Newspaper and the same is mentioned that written statement, as such plaintiff is not entitled for refund of the amount.

6. Learned counsel for appellant relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.5798-5799 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.23766-67 of 2005) between Bachhaj Nahar Vs. Nilima Mandal and Others, AIR 2009 SC 1103 in which it was held as follows: A Court cannot make out a case not pleaded. The Court should confine its decision to the question raised in pleadings. Nor can it grant a relief which is not claimed and which does not flow from the facts and the cause of action alleged in the plaint.

He also relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mrs. Akella Lalitha Vs. Sri Konda Hanumantha Rao and Another, 2022 237 AIC 84 in which it was held that “It is well settled that the decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties and it is the case pleaded that has to be found. Without an amendment of the plaint, the Court was not entitled to grant the relief not asked for and no prayer was ever made to amend the plaint so as to incorporate it in an alternative case.” 

7. Considering the above citations, this Court finds it is just and reasonable to set aside the judgment of the trial Court regarding the refund of the amount of Rs.21,00,111/- with interest @ 7% per annum.

8. In the result, this Appeal Suit is allowed by setting aside the judgment of the trial Court to the extent of refund of the advance amount of Rs.21,00,111/- by the appellant/defendant No.1 and the remaining judgment holds good. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.