This appeal is by the defendant. The plaintiff – respondent sued for specific performance of an agreement to sell the suit property. Demand made in the notice to receive the balance sale consideration amount and execute the sale deed having not been complied, suit was instituted, to pass decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 31.07.2007.

2. The defendant filed written statement and raised several defences.

3. The Trial Court raised the following issues for trial:

“1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant has executed a Registered sale agreement dated 31.07.2007 in his favour for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in respect of suit schedule property and received Rs.1,50,000/- as advance amount by agreeing to sell the suit schedule property?

2) Whether the plaintiff further proves that he is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled the relief sought for?

4) What order or decree?”

3.1. The plaintiff got examined himself as PW.1 and examined two witnesses as PWs.2 and 3 and produced 6 documents, which were marked as Exs.P1 to P6. The defendant got examined himself as DW.1 and examined 3 witnesses as DWs.2 to 4 and produced 5 documents, which were marked as Exs.D1 to D5.

3.2. The Trial Court answered the issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit with cost and directed the defendant to execute the absolute sale deed by receiving balance sale consideration amount of Rs.50,000/- along with interest at 8% p.a. i.e., on the balance sale consideration from the date of filing the suit till its payment.

4. The defendant filed an appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chintamani, having heard the learned advocates, raised the following points for consideration:

“1) Whether the trial court is justified in holding that the defendant has executed a sale agreement for sale of property and not for security for the payment of loan?

2) Whether the judgment and decree of the trial court warrants interference?

3) What order?”

4.1. By a judgment dated 28.08.2014, passed in R.A. No. 44/2013, he concurred with the decision of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant filed this second appeal under Section 100 CPC.

6. Substantial question of law which arises for consideration is, whether the impugned decrees are unsustainable for non-consideration of the case by the courts below with reference to Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963?

7. Heard the learned advocates on both sides and perused the record. Main ground urged for the appellant is that both courts below have not applied their minds to the material aspect required under law by virtue of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short ‘the Act’) and thus, there is abdication of statutory duty. Learned advocate for the respondent on the other hand made submission in support of the decrees passed by the courts below.

8. Normally, a suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property, when filed, raises questions like, 1) Whether the plaintiff has satisfied the requirements of Section 16 of the Act, 2) whether it is a case in which specific performance of the contract is enforceable in terms of Section 10, 3) whether in terms of Section 20 of the Act, the discretion to decree specific performance should be exercised by the court, 4) in case the defence has been raised with regard to the suit being barred by limitation with reference to Article 54 of the Limitation Act, whether the suit is barred by limitation, and 5) whether the plaintiff has been guilty of negligence or laches which disentitles for a decree for specific performance.

9. To answer the substantial question of law raised, Section 20 of the Act being relevant is extracted herein below for ready reference:

“20. Discretion as to decreeing specific performance.-

1. The jurisdiction to decree specific performance is discretionary, and the c