JUDGMENT : Appeal Suit has been filed by the plaintiff, who preferred the suit for specific performance based on the sale agreement dated 12.11.2018. 2. The trial Court, after considering the pleadings and appreciation of evidence, held that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of specific performance. However, having proved the passing of consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- to the defendants, the plaintiff is entitled for the alternative relief of refund of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a., and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the property till the realisation of the amount. Time for repayment of the decree amount was fixed as six months. The judgment and decree of the Court below, dated 30.06.2022, is the subject matter of the present appeal. 3.According to the appellant/plaintiff, the agreement marked as Ex.A1 is true and valid. The Court below ought to have granted the relief of specific performance. Instead, it had granted the alternate relief of refund of advance money. Having proved the ready and willingness to perform his part of contract, the relief of specific performance ought not to have been denied. Having paid a substantial portion of the sale consideration and balance was only Rs.1,00,000/-, the trial Court ought to have granted the relief of specific performance. 4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that the defendants, with an intention to sell the suit property had entered into the sale agreement on 12.11.2018 and agreed to sell the property for the price of Rs.11,00,000/-. An advance of Rs.10,00,000/- was paid on the same day with a condition that the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- will be paid within a period of six months from the date of sale agreement. 5. Despite expressing the readiness and willingness to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- and get the sale deed registered, the breach was on the part of the defendants to execute the sale deed receiving the balance sale consideration. While so, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the trial Court ought not to have declined the relief of specific performance. 6. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that there is no specific plea for alternate relief of refund in the plaint. However, the Court below had granted the alternate relief. While so, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the trial Court ought not to have declined the relief of specific performance. 6. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that there is no specific plea for alternate relief of refund in the plaint. However, the Court below had granted the alternate relief. The recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.R.Suresh v. R.Poornima and others reported in [ 2025 INSC 617 ] , it is held that without prayer for the relief of refund of sale consideration, the alternate relief of refund cannot be granted. However, he fairly conceded that the respondents/defendants have accepted the judgment and not preferred any Appeal. 7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, in response, submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above said judgment had not foreclosed the right of the plaintiff for want of explicit prayer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that an amendment seeking alternate relief can be filed at any stage. Therefore, having filed the appeal against the denial of the larger relief of specific performance, there is no bar under statute to grant alternate relief in the absence of prayer and if it is necessary, the appellant may be permitted to make an application for amendment of the plaint. 8. This Court, after giving anxious consideration to the rival submissions and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in K.R.Suresh v. R.Poornima and others reported in [ 2025 INSC 617 ] , is of the view that for the facts of the case in hand the dictum laid down by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Fateh Chand v. Balakishnan Das reported in [1963 AIR 1405], is more appropriate. Undoubtedly, there is a different between advanced money and earnest money paid under an agreement. Whatever name or nomenclature the money carries, the point involved is the refund of sale consideration to the agreement holder. 9. In case of any difficulty in performing the contract, but passing of consideration is accepted or proved, the person, who has parted away the money, cannot be deprived of the equitable relief of the specific performance and the person, who received the money cannot be blessed with unjust enrichment. Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act , empowers Court to grant relief for possession, partition, refund of earnest money etc., 10. Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act , empowers Court to grant relief for possession, partition, refund of earnest money etc., 10. Proviso of Sub Section (2) of Section 22 in order to grant the above said relief confers right on the plaintiff, who has not claimed any such relief in the plaint, to amend the plaint at any stage of the proceedings for including the claim for such relief. 11. A plain reading of Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act , certainly, indicates, an alternate relief of refund cannot be granted without specific pleadings. The judgment in K.R.Suresh v. R.Poornima and others reported in [ 2025 INSC 617 ] , by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in sum and substance, is in conformity with the language of Section 22 . 12. The learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to Order VII Rule(7), wherein the Code has enumerated, what are the particulars to be contained in a plaint. Every plaint shall state specifically the relief claimed by the plaintiff either simply or in the alternate. There is no necessity to expressly include general and other relief, which the Court may grand, it is think fit. 13. The evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff by way of oral and documentary evidence and exhibits marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A6, indicates that the respondent/defendants had received Rs.10,00,000/- with a promise to sell the property within six months, after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-. 14. Few months before execution of agreement for sale dated 12.11.2018, the parties have entered into the three other agreements for sale with different sale consideration. In those earlier agreements marked by the defendants as Ex.B3, Ex.B4 and Ex.B5, the later document (i.e) Ex.A1 been referred, this had forced the Court below to hold that Ex.A1 though captioned as agreement for sale and the recital also carries the character of an agreement for sale, the spirit and intention of the parties to the document, was otherwise and it is only a document executed as a security for the loan advanced. Under such circumstances, the Court below had ordered the relief of refund of the money received with 12% interest. 15. The learned senior counsel for the respondents has submitted that the respondents/defendants had not preferred any appeal against the impugned judgment. Under such circumstances, the Court below had ordered the relief of refund of the money received with 12% interest. 15. The learned senior counsel for the respondents has submitted that the respondents/defendants had not preferred any appeal against the impugned judgment. It is the plaintiff, who has come before this Court for denial of the larger relief. Therefore, the alternative relief granted need not be disturbed. 16. On a careful pleadings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.R. Suresh case, this Court finds that it is the case, where the alternative relief was denied by the Court below for want of pleadings. The lease was in respect of refund of earnest money paid in an agreement for sale of an immovable property. This judgment has clarified that an amendment seeking alternate relief can be sought at any stage of the proceedings, since proceedings been interpreted as it includes appellate stage as well. Therefore, there need not be any legal impediment for seeking amendment to seek alternate relief if declined by the Court below. 17. However, on considering the facts on hand, this Court is of the view that no such application for amendment is required, since the Court below itself had considered the reason to grant alternate relief without pleadings and granted the alternate relief. The question of filing an application for amendment may arise only when the Court below has denied the alternate relief as in the case of K.R.Suresh v. R.Poornima and others reported in [ 2025 INSC 617 ] and not in all cases. Particularly, in cases the alternate relief already granted. 18. The power of the appellate Court to grant relief without pleadings is fortified by the provision of Section 151 C.P.C, Order VII, Rule 7 of C.P.C., and Order 41, Rule 33 of C.P.C. 19. When the proven facts establishes if alternate relief not granted, there will be unjust enrichment and the party aggrieved will be left without any remedy, the Court cannot be mute spectator and deprive the remedy which the plaintiff deserves. In this case, the trial Court after due consideration of evidence has granted alternate relief of refund, of course without pleadings. The defendants also had accepted the decree and not preferred any appeal against it. 20. In such circumstances, there is no necessity to interfere the judgment of the Court below for want of specific pleadings for alternate relief. 21. In this case, the trial Court after due consideration of evidence has granted alternate relief of refund, of course without pleadings. The defendants also had accepted the decree and not preferred any appeal against it. 20. In such circumstances, there is no necessity to interfere the judgment of the Court below for want of specific pleadings for alternate relief. 21. Hence, for the reason stated above, this Appeal Suit stands dismissed. The judgment and decree of the Lower Court stands confirmed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No order as to costs.