The exercise of discretion in specific performance cases must align with principles of preventing undue hardship, as established under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act.

JUDGMENT :

C M JOSHI, J.

Being aggrieved by the judgment of the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.93/2007, whereby the judgment of the Trial Court in O.S.No.73/2005 was partially modified, the plaintiff is before this Court in appeal.

2. The factual aspect that is necessary for the purpose of this appeal is as below:

a. The plaintiff and the defendants are hailing from the same village i.e., Hulkoppa of Kalghatagi Taluk. The plaint avers that the defendants were in need of money for payment of their family debts and therefore, they offered to sell the suit schedule property, for which the plaintiff made an offer for Rs.35,000/-. The defendants found that the said offer was highest and therefore, they agreed to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.35,000/-. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.30,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendants on 02.05.1996 and an agreement was executed on the same day. In the said agreement, it was stated that the defendants would execute the sale deed as and when the plaintiff would call them for such execution, after receiving the sum of Rs.5,000/- which was in balance. It was also agreed that the possession of the property has to be handed over to the plaintiff at the time of the execution of the registered sale deed.

b. Thereafter, the plaintiff had kept the balance sale consideration ready and on several occasions, requested the defendants to execute the sale deed. However, the defendants went on postponing on one or the other pretext and even the efforts by the elders did not yield any result. It was stated that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract and he had kept the balance sale consideration ready.

c. It is alleged that the defendant in order to defraud the plaintiff, were trying to sell the suit schedule property to third parties and therefore, the plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendants on 27.06.2005 and called upon the defendants to execute the sale deed within seven days by receiving the balance sale consideration amount. Since, the defendants did not give any reply, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit seeking specific performance of the contract of agreement of sale. The plaintiff prayed that the defendants be directed to execute the sale deed as per the agreement and for any reason if the Court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled for the specific performance, then the plaintiff be awarded the refund of the amount along with damages and interest.

3. The suit schedule property is described to be the house property bearing VPC No.64, present No.94 situated in ward No.1 of Hulkoppa village.

4. On service of summons, the defendants appeared before the Court and defendant No.1 filed the written statement. The defendant No.1 denied the plaint averments and set up the contentions as below:

a. The allegations of the plaintiff that the defendants were in need of money for settlement of family debts is not correct. They also denied the facts that the agreement of sale executed between the plaintiff and the defendants and that the defendants had went on postponing the execution of the sale deed.

b. The defendants contended that in the year 1996, the defendant No.1 was in need of money and therefore, when he requested the plaintiff, a sum of Rs.9,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant as a loan. As a security to the said loan, the plaintiff got the signatures of the defendants. The defendant No.1 had paid a sum of Rs.9,000/- to the son of the plaintiff i.e., Maliikarjun on 24.06.1998 and the said Mallikarjun has issued a recei