Earnest money forfeiture and refund relief under Specific Relief Act require a specific pleading before refund can be granted.

An express forfeiture clause can validly operate where the money paid is, in substance, earnest money securing performance and adjustable against the sale price on completion. Because the appellant failed to pay the balance consideration within the stipulated period, the vendors were entitled to forfeit the amount. Refund of earnest money is an alternative relief under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, but it must be specifically claimed in the plaint or by amendment; a general prayer for other reliefs does not authorise the court to grant refund on its own. The refund claim was therefore untenable and forfeiture was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to refund of the sum paid under the agreement after forfeiture by the vendors, and whether such refund could be granted in the absence of a specific prayer under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Analysis: The agreement contained an express forfeiture clause, and the amount paid was treated as earnest money in substance, being intended to secure performance and liable to be adjusted against the sale price if the transaction was completed. The appellant failed to pay the balance consideration within the stipulated period, and the vendors were therefore justified in forfeiting the amount. The Court also held that refund of earnest money is an alternative relief under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, but it must be specifically claimed in the plaint or by amendment. A general prayer for such other reliefs does not authorise the court to grant refund suo motu.

Conclusion: The refund claim was untenable and the forfeiture was upheld.

---