(Prayer in A.S.: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of CPC to set aside the judgment and decree dated 20.09.2019 passed in O.S.No.2 of 2018 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Ranipet, Vellore District and allow the First Appeal and dismiss the suit in favour of the appellant herein.)

1. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 20.09.2019 passed in O.S. No.2 of 2018 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Ranipet, whereby the suit filed for specific performance was dismissed and, in the alternative, the suit was decreed for refund of the advance amount of Rs.20,00,000/- with interest. Aggrieved by the grant of refund, the defendant has preferred the present Appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The case of the plaintiff; The defendant is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and agreed to sell the same for a total sale consideration of Rs.21,00,000/-. A registered sale agreement dated 04.08.2016 was executed, under which the defendant received Rs.20,00,000/- as advance on the very same day.

4. The defendant agreed to execute the sale deed within three years and allegedly handed over the original title deeds. It is pleaded that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-, but the defendant avoided execution of the sale deed.

5. Legal notices dated 30.08.2017 and 20.09.2017 were issued. The defendant sent a reply dated 09.10.2017, followed by a rejoinder from the plaintiff dated 21.10.2017. Hence, the suit was filed for specific performance, and in the alternative, for refund of the advance amount with interest and costs.

6. The Defendant’s case; The defendant admitted execution of the document dated 04.08.2016, but contended that it was not intended as a sale agreement, and was executed only as security for a loan transaction. It was pleaded that the parties are relatives and that the plaintiff, being a moneylender, insisted upon execution of the document as collateral security.

7. The defendant further alleged repayment of amounts, including Rs.1,20,000/- towards interest, Rs.5,00,000/- in cash, Rs.30,000/- on 27.07.2017, and Rs.90,000/-, and contended that the plaintiff had suppressed these repayments. Though handing over of title deeds was admitted, it was stated to be only by way of security. The defendant denied the plaintiff’s readiness and willingness and sought dismissal of the suit.

8. Before the trial Court, the plaintiff alone was examined as P.W.1, and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. The defendant neither entered the witness box nor adduced any oral or documentary evidence.

9. During the pendency of the suit, settlement talks were held and the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat, where the parties filed a Joint Compromise Memo. However, as no settlement was arrived at, the matter was returned to the regular Court for disposal. The trial court resumed the hearing and granted an alternative remedy of refund of advance amount.

10. Aggrieved, the defendant filed the present Appeal contending that Ex. A1 is not a genuine sale agreement but a security document for a loan; the plaintiff failed to prove payment or financial capacity to pay Rs.20,00,000/- except by recital in Ex. A1; the trial Court failed to consider alleged repayments made by the defendant; and the decree for refund without proper proof is unsustainable.

11. Points for Consideration: The following points arise for consideration in this Appeal:

               (i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the alternative relief of refund of the advance amount?

               (ii)Whether the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S. No.2 of 2018 are liable to be set aside?

12. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that Ex.A1 was executed only by way of security, that the appellant paid Rs.2,00,000/- in Lok Adalat proceedings and had already repaid substantial amounts (including Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.1,20,000/- through bank/other modes), and therefore the decree for refund of the entire Rs.20,00,000/- without deduction is erroneous. It was further argued that the plaintiff allegedly arranged Rs.20,00,000/- within two months but sought three years for paying the balance Rs.1,00,000/-, which itself shows that Ex.A1 is not a genuine sale agreement. Further, it was argued that without proper court fee for the alternative relief, refund could not have been granted. Remand was sought on the ground that fair opportunity was not afforded.

13. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the parties had arrived at a settlement (payment of Rs.24,00,000/-) before the lok adalat during trial proceeding and in view of such settlement understanding, the appeal itself is not maintainable.

14. Points Nos.1 and 2: The suit was filed on the basis of a written registered sale agreement dated 04.08.2016 (Ex. A1). The plaintiff had expressly sought the alternative relief of refund of advance amount. The execution of Ex. A1 and receipt of Rs.20,00,000/- are admitted by the defendant. The plaintiff asserted that the agreement was intended for sale and that she was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract.

15. In contrast, the defendant contended that the agreement was executed only as security for a loan. Significantly, at the time of execution, more than 90% of the sale consideration was paid, and a long period was stipulated for payment of the small balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.

16. The plaintiff entered the witness box as P.W.1 and subjected herself to cross-examination. On the defendant’s side, no witness was examined, and no evidence whatsoever was adduced to substantiate the plea that Ex. A1 was a security document or that repayments were made.

17. In the absence of any evidence on the side of the defendant, the trial Court accepted the plaintiff’s version and concluded that, though specific performance could not be granted, the plaintiff was entitled to the alternative relief of refund of advance amount, and accordingly decreed the suit.

18. Though the defendant preferred the present Appeal, he had failed to enter the witness box before the trial Court and failed to produce any oral or documentary evidence in support of his defence that the agreement was executed only as security. Further, there is no proof whatsoever regarding the alleged repayment of Rs.5,00,000/- or other amounts. In the absence of such evidence, the contentions raised in the Appeal remain unsupported and untenable.

19. One aspect noticed from the trial Court Judgment is that during the pendency of the suit, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat, where both parties appeared, but no settlement was arrived at and consequently no award was passed. However, while resuming trial, the trial Court referred to the memo and contents discussed before the Lok Adalat, which is impermissible. Rule 18(2) of the National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalat) Regulations, 2009, runs as follows:

               “The views expressed and discussions made by parties during the proceedings of Lok Adalat in respect of the possible settlement of a dispute and the proposals made by the members of Lok Adalat or admission made by any party or the conduct of the parties in the course of the proceeding before Lok Adalat shall not be brought in evidence or made use of in other court or arbitral proceedings”.

20. The Rule restricts, the views, discussions, proposals, admissions, or conduct of parties before the Lok Adalat shall not be brought in evidence or made use of in other proceedings. Though such reference is legally impermissible, the same does not affect the ultimate conclusion reached by the trial Court on the merits of the case.

21. In view of the admitted execution of the agreement and receipt of the advance amount, coupled with the total absence of evidence on the part of the defendant, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court granting refund of the advance amount.

22. The contention of the appellant that a separate court-fee is required to be paid for the relief of refund of advance amount, when it is prayed for only as an alternative relief, is wholly untenable and contrary to the statutory scheme of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act.

23. Section 6(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, which deals with multifarious suits, clearly mandates that where a plaintiff seeks more than one relief, the court-fee shall be payable only on the relief which is of the highest value, and not separately on each relief, provided the reliefs are not distinct and independent causes of action.

24. In a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale, the primary relief is the enforcement of the contract. The prayer for refund of the advance amount is invariably sought in the alternative, to be granted only in the event of the principal relief being declined. Such an alternative prayer does not constitute an independent or substantive relief; it is merely ancillary and consequential to the main relief of specific performance.

25. Once court-fee is paid on the main relief, namely specific performance—calculated on the full sale consideration as required under Section 42 of the Act—no additional or separate court-fee is exigible on the alternative relief of refund of advance. Requiring a separate court-fee for such an alternative prayer would defeat the very object of Section 6(2) and lead to an anomalous situation where a litigant is compelled to pay court-fee twice over the same cause of action.

26. Therefore, the court-fee paid on the highest-valued relief, being the relief of specific performance, fully satisfies the statutory requirement. The appellant’s contention that the respondent ought to have paid a separate court-fee on the alternative relief of refund of advance amount is misconceived, legally unsustainable, and is liable to be rejected. Thus the Points No. 1 & 2 are answered against the appellant/defendant.

27. Accordingly, the Judgment and Decree dated 20.09.2019 passed in O.S. No.2 of 2018 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Ranipet, are confirmed.

28. In the result the Appeal is dismissed with costs. Consequently, if any connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are pending, they shall stand closed.