The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of S.16(c) and S.20 of the Specific Relief Act, emphasizing the continuous readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform the essential terms of the contract and the exercise of judicial discretion by the court.

P.A. Mohammed, J.

1. The first defendant in a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale, is the appellant. The plaintiff and second defendant are respondents 1 and 2 respectively in the appeal. The appeal is against the judgment and decree of the court below directing the appellant to execute the sale deed in performance of the agreement for sale.

2. The facts involved in this appeal are condensed thus: An agreement for sale (Ext. A-1) was executed by the appellant in favour of the first respondent on 20th March 1985 agreeing to sell the plaint schedule property. The consideration for sale of the property was fixed at Rs. 50,000, out of which a sum of Rs. 16,000 was paid in advance. It was agreed that the sale deed would be executed within a period of three years. The property involved in the agreement is described as 79 cents of nilam comprised in Rs. 339/1 in Kunhimangalam Amsom Desom. It was part of the property which was purchased by the appellant under Ext. A-2 assignment deed. She had obtained purchase certificate in respect of the said property in O.A. No. 848 of 1976 of the Land Tribunal, Kannur. On 16th February 1987 the first respondent issued Ext. B-3 notice to the appellant calling upon her to execute the sale deed on 25th February 1987 on receiving balance consideration. However, the appellant sent Ext. A-4 reply on 13th March 1987 contending that Ext. A-1 agreement for sale was not really intended to be performed as such but it was executed only as security for the loan amount advanced. Thereafter, the first respondent filed a suit, O.S. No. 53/87 before the Munsiff's Court, Payyannur, seeking permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the appellant from alienating the property. That suit was decreed in view of Ext. A-1 agreement. On 17th March 1985 second respondent, the husband of the appellant, issued a notice to the first respondent contending that the property involved in Ext. A-l agreement really belonged to him and the balance consideration of Rs. 34,000 should be paid to him. Since the appellant refused to execute the sale deed even after the issue of Ext. B-3 notice the present suit O.S. No. 51 of 1991 was filed before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Payyannur. After the trial the court below passed a decree directing the first respondent to deposit Rs. 34,000 within two months from the date of the judgment and the appellant was directed to execute the sale deed on such deposit. The court below further ordered that in case the appellant fails to execute sale deed within the time stipulated, it would be open to the first respondent to execute the sale deed through the process of court. Hence this appeal is filed by the appellant.

3. On behalf of the appellant, the following contentions were advanced:

(i) That the suit for specific performance as framed by the first respondent is not maintainable.

(ii) That the suit is bad for non compliance of the provision contained in S.16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

(iii) That the court below has committed grievous error in exercising the discretion under S.20 of the Specific Relief Act in granting a decree for specific performance in favour of the first respondent,

Contention No. i

4. In order to channelize the contention that the suit as framed is not maintainable, counsel for the appellant pointed out that Ext. A-l agreement was not intended to be acted upon and it remained as a sham document. It was executed as security for the amount advanced and the parties had never intended that the sale should take place. Since the appellant was faced with financial stress in that he required money in order to meet the expenses of the marriage of his daughter, she approached the first respondent for a loan. The counsel maintains that it was in those circumstances the appellant was compelled to execute Ext. A-1 agreement. In support of the above plea, counsel relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Abdul Khader Rowther v. P. K. Sara Bai and others