The court's decision emphasized the discretionary nature of specific performance jurisdiction, guided by judicial principles and equitable considerations.

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

Appellants are defendants 1 and 2.

2. Suit was for specific performance of Ext. Al agreement dated 29.4.1993 entered into between defendants 1 and 2 and the plaintiff for sale of 3.140 cents of land and the buildings thereon situated in Sy. No. 153/1 of Mattancherry Village, for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,35,000/

3. Plaint schedule property comprised of a residential building bearing No. CC 4/ 551 and two shop rooms bearing Nos. 4/549 and 550. Defendants 1 and 2 agreed to execute the sale deed within a period of six months from the date of the agreement, after getting the possessory mortgagee and tenants evicted. Since defendants 1 and 2 failed to comply with the terms of the agreement, plaintiff sent a lawyer notice Ext. A2 dated 25.10.1993 before the expiry of the six months' period directing them to comply with terms of the agreement and execute the sale deed within the time stipulated in the agreement. Plaintiff stated in the notice that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Defendants 1 and 2 did not sent any reply to the lawyer notice.

4. Plaintiff later came to know that residential building bearing No. CC 4/551 was in the occupation of one Hamza, and on his death, his wife and children were residing there. He therefore, impleaded the wife as fifth defendant, and children' as defendants 6 to 8. Two shop rooms were also found to be in the occupation of tenants who were also impleaded as defendants 3 and 4. In the plaint, plaintiff reiterated that he is ready willing to perform his part of the contract. He has sought for a decree for specific performance after clearing all encumbrances and for mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 750/- per month from the date of the suit till recovery and also for consequential reliefs,

5. Defendants 1 and 2 filed a written statement. Defendants 3 to 8, even though entered appearance, did not file any written statement. Defendants 1 and 2 did not deny execution of Ext. Al agreement. They admitted receipt of Rs. 25.000/-. According to them, agreement was executed as a security for the above mentioned amount, which was received as a loan to discharge liabilities incurred in connection with the marriage of first defendant's daughter. It is their case that Ext. Al was executed due to undue influence and coercion, and that the terms of the agreement were impossible of compliance within the time stipulated in the agreement. They had no intention to part with the property, and that second defendant is making his livelihood from the income derived from his tailoring business.

6. In order to establish the case of the plaintiff, he examined himself as PW1 and the scribe of Ext. Al as PW2. On the side of defendants, second respondent got himself examined as DW1.

7. After considering oral and documentary evidence, the trial court decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court, defendants 1 and 2 have come up in appeal.

8. The jurisdiction to order specific performance is based on the existence of a valid enforcement contract. In the instant case, execution of Ext. Al agreement was not disputed by parties. Counsel for defendants 1 and 2 even though pointed out that there is no signature of defendants 1 and 2 at page 3 of Ext. Al, neither in the written statement nor in the oral evidence of DW1, execution of Ext. Al was disputed. The case set up by defendants 1 and 2 is that the agreement was executed as a security for the amount borrowed in order to discharge certain liabilities incurred in connection with first defendant's daughter's marriage. Apart from the oral testimony of DW1, there is no other evidence whatsoever to conclude that Ext. Al was executed as a security for the loan amount advanced by the plaintiff. In the absence of any evidence, we are in agreement with the finding of the trial court that Ext. Al was executed not as a security for the loan amount advanced by the plaintiff.

9. Counsel for defendants 1 and 2