Appellant loses appeal as earnest money forfeiture upheld for property sale default and damages

The SC dismissed the appellant's appeal regarding forfeiture of earnest money in a property sale agreement. The appellant defaulted on executing the sale deed by the stipulated date and caused property damage by cutting coconut trees and destroying crops. Although one party was a minor at contract formation, the minor attained majority during litigation and ratified the agreement, making court permission unnecessary under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. The court found the appellant failed to perform contractual obligations and did not approach with clean hands. Given the specific forfeiture clause and respondents' damages exceeding Rs. 70,000, forfeiture of Rs. 50,000 was justified.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the forfeiture of earnest money, the validity of the agreement due to the minor's involvement, and the entitlement of the respondents to forfeit the entire amount.

Forfeiture of earnest money:
The appellant entered into an agreement to purchase land but failed to register the sale deed within the specified time, leading to a dispute over the earnest money. The High Court held that the appellant's failure to obtain layout plan sanction was a breach of contract, justifying the forfeiture of the earnest money.

Validity of agreement due to minor's involvement:
The appellant argued that the minor's guardian did not obtain court permission for the sale deed, rendering the agreement defective. However, the minor later became a major and adopted the contract terms, indicating willingness to perform. The Court found that the appellant failed to prove that the respondents suffered damages justifying the refund of the earnest money.

Entitlement to forfeit the entire amount:
The Court determined that the respondents were entitled to forfeit the entire amount due to the appellant's default and the damages they suffered. The respondents were granted permission to sell the property during the appeal, but the sale did not cover their losses, justifying the forfeiture of the earnest money.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to dismiss the appellant's suit, ruling that the forfeiture of the earnest money was justified based on the appellant's breach of contract and the damages suffered by the respondents.

---