It has been categorically found by the Courts below that the appellant / defendant had received a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- from the respondent / plaintiff, for which executed, Ex.A.1, agreement for sale was executed by the appellant / defendant. The Courts below have concurrently found that the amount received by the appellant was not repaid by the appellant, though she has admitted that the said amount was received by her only as loan, in spite of the fact that Ex.A.1 is an agreement for sale between the appellant and the respondent herein and as per the decree, the appellant / defendant has to return the advance amount / part of sale consideration with interest and costs. On equity, the Courts below are empowered to pass the decree, to meet the ends of justice. In fact, the appellant / defendant, who has not performed her part of the contract, cannot retain the advance amount, as it would be an unjust enrichment, which is contrary to law. It is well settled that the trial Court is empowered to direct the appellant / defendant to return the money, on the facts and circumstance of the case, which cannot be construed as against law and further, in the plaint, the respondent / plaintiff has specifically made the prayer (d) to grant such further or other relief as the Court may deem fit to grant the relief, in the circumstances of the case. Even such prayer is not raised, the Court is empowered to grant appropriate decree, to meet the ends of justice and therefore, the Courts below are justified in granting the decree for refund of the advance amount, though there is no specific alternative prayer for return of the amount and in fact, the defence raised by the appellant / defendant could not be justified. Hence,
