Supreme Court Upholds Forfeiture of Advance Money in Property Dispute : No Refund for Defaulting Buyer
The Supreme Court upheld the forfeiture of advance money in a specific performance suit, clarifying the legal distinction between "earnest money" and "advance money." It held that time was of the essence in the sale contract, and the purchaser’s default justified forfeiture. The Court further ruled that earnest money, if provided as security for performance and not merely part-payment, may be lawfully forfeited. Moreover, it held that an alternative relief for refund under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, must be specifically claimed; in its absence, such relief cannot be granted.
Facts Of The Case:
The case involves a dispute over the specific performance of an Agreement to Sell (ATS) dated 25.07.2007, executed between K.R. Suresh (plaintiff) and R. Poornima and her family m...