Specific performance can be enforced when valid agreements exist and parties demonstrate readiness to perform, despite claims of non-authorization; discretion under the Specific Relief Act favors equitable outcomes.

JUDGMENT :

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2014 in R.A.No.232/2010 passed by learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad whereby the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2010 in O.S.No.252/2001 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Kalaghatagi, for refund of earnest money paid under an agreement of sale was modified and the defendants were directed to execute the sale deed by paying ten times additional amount than the agreed sale consideration.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the alleged first agreement between the parties was as per Ex.P.1 dated 02.06.1997, under which it was stated that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was received as an earnest amount of the total sale consideration of Rs. 50,000/- from the plaintiff. Thereafter, the defendant No.1, who happens to be the mother of the defendant No.2, approached the Court in a G & WC No.17/1997 before the Principal Civil Judge and CJM, Dharwad and prayed for granting permission to alienate the property in favour of the plaintiff. It is contented that the Court had allowed such alienation by order dated 29.06.2002. In the meanwhile, the defendant No.1 is alleged to have entered into supplementary agreement as per Ex.P.2 on 19.10.2000 and the sale consideration was enhanced from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 52,000/- and an additional sum of Rs. 27,000/- was paid on that day. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed suit for specific performance contending that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but the defendants have not executed the sale deed and issued a legal notice and ultimately he filed the suit before the Trial Court seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants now submits that the First Appellate Court, modified the judgment of the Trial Court and directed the defendants to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. It is submitted that as on the date of the alleged second agreement Ex.P.2, the G & WC Court had not yet granted the permission to alienate the property and therefore, the defendant No.1 could not have entered into any agreement as per Ex.P.2 with the plaintiff. On that ground, the alleged agreements for alienation are non-est and they could not have been relied by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.

5. The second prong of the argument is that, the defendants had taken the contention that it was a transaction in respect of the mortgage and therefore, the Courts below could not have construed the Ex.P.1 or Ex.P.2 as an agreement. Hence he seeks indulgence of this Court.

6. So far as the delay of 877 days in filing the appeal is concerned, it is contented that the defendants were unaware, of the judgment of the First Appellate Court and therefore, the delay has been properly explained by the appellants and as such the delay can be condoned.

7. It is pertinent to note that this Court by order dated 19.07.2024 had directed the parties to make their submissions on merit and I.A.No.1/2018 seeking condonation of delay was kept in abeyance.

8. Coming to the merits of the case, it is pertinent to note that the only question that was available before the First Appellate Court was whether the discretion exercised by the Trial Court in ordering refund of the earnest money and refusing