V. Ramasubramanian, J.

1. The plaintiffs in a suit, whose prayer for specific performance was negatived, but in whose favour a decree for refund of money was granted, have come up with the present regular appeal.

2. Heard Mr. M.V. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. V.L.N.G.K. Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 and 7 to 10, Mr. V.V. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 5 and 6 who are the subsequent purchasers of the property.

3. The appellants herein filed a suit in O.S. No. 21 of 2007 on the file of the District Court, Srikakulam as against the respondents 1 to 4 herein (the first respondent since died and his legal representatives were impleaded as respondents 7 to 10). The suit was for specific performance of an agreement of sale of immovable property dated 06.09.2004.

4. The respondents 1 to 4 took a defence in their Written Statement that they wanted to dispose of the suit schedule property, for the purpose of acquiring another property in Visakhapatnam and that the completion of the sale transaction hit several road blocks, in view of the tenants not vacating the property, but contesting the rent control proceedings. They also pleaded that at a mediation held in August, 2007, the parties had agreed for the return of the advance amount and that thereafter the plaintiffs had come up with the suit.

5. The Court below framed two issues, which are as follows:

(i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 06.09.2004?

(ii) To what relief?

6. During trial, the appellants/plaintiffs examined four witnesses on their behalf. The second plaintiff was examined as PW-1, the father-in-law of PW-1 who was one of the attestors to the agreement of sale was examined as PW-2, another attestor to the agreement of sale was examined as PW-3 and the scribe of the agreement of sale was examined as PW-4. The plaintiffs filed as many as 11 documents as Exs.A.1 to A.11.

7. On the side of the defendants, the fourth defendant was examined as DW-1 and the second defendant was examined as DW-2. The defendants filed the certified copy of the deposition of PW-4, in the rent control proceedings, as Ex.B.1. Other than this document, the defendants did not file any documents.

8. Based upon the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court came to a conclusion that though Ex.A.1 agreement was true, valid and binding, the defendants had not satisfied the requirements of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act'). The Court below also came to the conclusion that in view of the pendency of the disputes between the defendants and their tenants, it was difficult for the defendants to complete the transaction and handover vacant possession as per the agreement of sale. After holding so, the trial Court went into the question of hardship, which is one of the parameters on which the discretionary relief of specific performance had to be decided and held that the hardship that would be caused to the defendants in granting specific performance was much more. Therefore, the Court below rejected the prayer for specific performance, but allowed the alternative relief of recovery of the advance money of Rs. 11,50,000/-. The Court below directed this amount to be refunded by the defendants together with interest at 12% per annum from the date of agreement, viz. 06.09.2004 upto the date of the decree. The Court also awarded 6% interest on the said amount, from the date of the decree till the date of realization.

9. Not satisfied with the decree for refund of the advance money, the plaintiffs have come up with the present appeal.

10. Before we proceed further, we are obliged to point out, that the appellants herein did not seek in their suit, the alternative relief of recovery of money. The alternative relief for the refund of money in a suit for specific performance, can be granted subject to the prescriptions contained in Section 22