The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to decree specific performance under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

JUDGMENT :

Ashok S.Kinagi, J.

This appeal is filed by the defendant challenging the judgment and decree dated 09.12.2016, passed in R.A.No.7/2014, confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2013, passed in O.S.No.206/2009.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. Appellant is the defendant and respondent is the plaintiff before the Trial Court.

3. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are as under :

The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant is the absolute owner and possessor of land bearing Sy.No.54/1, totally measuring 23 acres 32 guntas including the suit land measuring 1 acre 5 guntas situated at Village Malkapur, Taluka and Dist. Bidar. The name of the defendant is appearing in the Record of Right of suit land as the exclusive owner and possessor of the same. The defendant has purchased the said land from previous owner under the registered sale deed dated 23.12.2000, and became the exclusive owner and possessor of the same. The defendant due to his family and shariya necessities and to pay off the debts, agreed to sell the suit land in Sy.No.54/1 to the extent of 1 acre 5 guntas. Accordingly he approached the plaintiff. The plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit land and accordingly plaintiff and defendants have mutually settled the valuation of the suit land at Rs.80,000/- and the same was agreed by both of them in the presence of the witnesses. The defendant executed a registered agreement of sale dated 18.09.2008, for the sale of suit land in favour of the plaintiff. While executing the registered agreement of sale, the defendant received part consideration amount of Rs.70,000/- out of total consideration of Rs.80,000/-. It was agreed that the balance amount of Rs.10,000/- to be payable at the time of execution of final registered sale deed of suit land and it was agreed that the defendant would execute a registered sale deed within a period of one year from the date of execution of agreement of sale by receiving balance consideration amount. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale dated 18.09.2008, the plaintiff has arranged the balance consideration amount of Rs.10,000/- and requested the defendant to execute registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff by receiving the balance consideration amount of Rs.10,000/-. The plaintiff was ready and willing to get executed the registered sale deed of the suit land and ready to pay the registration charges and stamp duty, but the defendant went on prolonging the matter. The plaintiff was and is ready to perform his part of contract and ready to pay the balance consideration, but the defendant is not ready to perform his part of contract. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 11.09.2009, by registered post. The registered envelop returned with an endorsement as 'insufficient address and for want of house number', on 12.09.2009. After receiving the registered envelop by the plaintiff's counsel, the plaintiff got issued another notice on 19.09.2009 with correct house number. Again the advocate of the plaintiff received the postal envelop with an endorsement that 'addressee left without instruction'. The defendant is purposely avoiding to execute the registered sale deed of suit land in favour of plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff is constrained to file a suit for specific performance of contract.

3.1. Defendant filed written statement contending that the defendant is not alone the owner of land in Sy.No.54/1 to an extent of 1 acre 5 guntas. His brothers are also joint owners. The defendant had purchased the said property through the funds arranged by the brothers of defendant and their family members who have got equal share in the suit land and the sale deed is nominally purchased in the name of defendant under registered sale deed dated 23.12.2000. It is contended that defendant No.1 is in need of money for running poultry business in the suit land and approached the plainti