Ratnavale v. Appuhamy – 1978_79 volume 2 page 389

In Ratnavale v. Appuhamy, the court addressed whether a payment of Rs. 5,000/- made under an informal agreement to purchase land constituted an advance (part payment) or a deposit (arrha) and examined the enforceability of such an agreement lacking notarial execution, as well as the severability of its subsidiary provisions. It was held that the Rs. 5,000/- constituted an advance, which must be refunded to the plaintiff upon the failure of the sale, regardless of whose default caused the failure, particularly where the seller was at fault. The principle reaffirmed was that an advance, unlike an arrha or deposit under Roman-Dutch Law, is returnable if the contract is not concluded, distinguishing these concepts and confirming the severability of ancillary payment terms from a non-notarial m