The court's discretion to grant specific performance is not arbitrary; it must consider unforeseen hardship to the defendant at the time of contract execution, not merely subsequent changes in circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

J.B. PARDIWALA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Tripura in Regular First Appeal No. 28 of 2019 dated 29.07.2022 by which the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondents herein (Original Defendants) and thereby quashed and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge West Tripura, Agartala granting Specific Performance of Agreement of Sale in Title Suit No.135 of 2016 instituted by the appellant herein (Original Plaintiff).

3. Facts giving rise to this appeal may be summarised as under:

(a) The appellant herein (Original Plaintiff) instituted Case No. T.S. 135 of 2016 in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Div. (Court No. 1) West Tripura, Agartala and prayed for the following reliefs:

(i) A decree for declaration of the entitlement of the Plaintiff to get the execution, registration and possession of the suit land from the Defendants as part performance of the contract following the registered deed of Agreement for Sale dated 27.05.2016.

(ii) A decree for mandatory injunction directing the Defendants to execute and register the sale deed in respect of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff and to handover the possession of the suit land to the plaintiff as part performance of the contract in pursuance of the deed of Agreement for Sale within a specified period failing which to execute and register the sale deed in respect of the suit land in favour of plaintiff and to hand over possession of the suit land to the plaintiff through the Ld. Court by enforcing the decree as may be passed.

(iii) A decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their agents from making any kind of transfer of the suit land to others or to give any mortgage, lease, etc of the suit land till disposal of the present suit.

(b) It appears from the materials on record that the husband of the respondent no. 1 herein and father of the respondent no. 2 herein namely Late Prabha Ranjan Das was the lawful owner of the suit property.

(c) The appellant herein entered into a registered Agreement of Sale dated 27.05.2016 with respect to the suit property. The total sale consideration fixed was of Rs. 17,50,000.00 (Rupees Seventeen Lakh Fifty Thousand only). An amount of Rs. 4,00,000.00 (Rupees Four Lakh only) was paid to Late Prabha Ranjan Das by the appellant herein towards earnest money.

(d) Prabha Ranjan Das passed away on 05.07.2016 leaving behind the respondents (Original Defendants) as his lawful heirs.

(e) The appellant herein called upon the respondents herein to execute the Sale Deed in accordance with the terms of the Agreement of Sale dated 27.05.2016 duly executed by Prabha Ranjan Das.

(f) The respondents herein declined to execute the Sale Deed. In such circumstances, the appellant herein was left with no other option but to institute the suit, seeking specific performance of the contract.

(g) In the suit, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

(i) Is the suit maintainable in its present form and nature?

(ii) Has the plaintiff any cause of action to institute the instant suit?

(iii) Has the plaintiff entered into a registered agreement for sale dated 27.05.2016 with Prabha Ranjan Das (predecessor of the defendants) to purchase the suit land?

(iv) Are the averments available in the plaint in respect of readiness and willingness to perform the part of the contract in its true construction sufficient to enforce specific performance as prayed for?

(v) Is the plaintiff entitled to get a registered sale deed in terms of agreement for sale?

(vi) Is the plaintiff entitled to get a decree as prayed for?

(vii) What other relief / reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to?

(h) The suit ultimately came to be allowed in favour of the appellant herein vide judgment and decree dated 20.11.2018. The operative part of the order passed by the Trial Court reads thus:

“In the result, the suit is decreed with cost in favour of the plaintiff with following directions:

(a) the def