P.D. Rajan, J.

1. Appellants are plaintiffs in O.S.No.1329 of 1995 of the Second Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram and the defendant in the above suit is the respondent herein. Appellants also filed O.S.No.307 of 1995 in the same Court and both cases were tried together and disposed of by a common judgment on 30.6.1998. O.S.No.1329 of 1995 was filed by the appellants for specific performance of a contract.

2. The case of the appellants in the trial court was that they entered into an agreement on 18.1.1995 for sale of the plaint schedule property at the rate of Rs.3000/- per cent and a sum of Rs.25,000/- was paid to the respondent as advance and agreed to execute the sale deed within six months from the date of agreement. While, on 27.2.1995, the first appellant approached the respondent to put up a compound wall before executing the sale deed, he noticed that defendant had cut and removed a mango tree from the said property subsequent to the agreement, therefore O.S.No.307 of 1995 was filed against the respondent. When appellants demanded to execute the sale deed, after accepting the remaining consideration, the respondent refused to execute the sale deed. Hence the suit.

3. The respondent denied the allegation and contended that she never executed any agreement to sell the plaint schedule property to the appellants. As per the title deed No.2893/1960, she obtained title to an extent of 45 cents of property in survey No.904/7-21 of Peroorkada Village, which was fertile, grown with high yielding trees and valuable timbers. The respondent and her family are living in a house situated in the said property. At the time of the marriage of her second daughter, she gave possession of 25 cents on the western side of the property to her daughter after executing a document. During the year 1995, the market value per cent was Rs.10,000/-, excluding the building cost of Rs.2,00,000/-. When there was financial difficulty, the respondent borrowed money from the first appellant and pledged her property with the bank. When recovery steps were taken against the respondent, again she borrowed Rs.20,000/- from the first appellant, for which the first appellant demanded signed blank stamp paper. Accordingly, the respondent, her husband and younger daughter were forced to give signed blank stamp papers as security for the money borrowed. The respondent denied all the other allegations. According to the respondent, the appellants never expressed their willingness or readiness to purchase the property and as the respondent and her children are house maids of the appellants, they would be put to peril, if the property is sold.

4. The parties tendered evidence in the lower court which consist of the oral testimony of PW1 to PW3 and DW1 and their documentary evidence were marked as Exts.A1 to A5 and B1 to B9. After sifting and weighing the evidence on record, trial court dismissed both the suits without costs.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that Ext.A1 agreement is a valid document, which is sufficient for granting specific performance of contract. There was no reason for discarding the evidence of PW2 and PW3 which caused material prejudice to the appellants. PW1, her husband and her daughter were present at the time of execution of Ext.A1. There is no reason to doubt the credibility of Ext.A1. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that there was no evidence to prove Ext.A1 since the respondent was his maid servant, who obtained Ext.A1 fraudulently by misunderstanding the position at the time of borrowal of certain amounts and there is no reason to interfere with the finding recorded by the trial court.

6. The jurisdiction to grant a decree for specific performance of a contract is a discretionary remedy and the court is not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so, even though the discretion is not arbitrary but should be sound and guided by judicial principle. Wh