The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court's jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act provides discretionary power to decree specific performance, and the discretion must be exercised not to grant specific performance, with the option to order compensation or any sum to mitigate the plaintiff's loss.

JUDGMENT :

Whether the court can dictate the terms and conditions of contract in a suit for specific performance by directing payment of enhanced sale consideration and what is the jurisdiction vested with the court under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act')are the questions came up for consideration, besides the appreciation of evidence in the disputed issues involved in the suit.

2. A decree for specific performance of contract was granted by the trial court by re fixing the sale consideration at Rs.11,000/-per cent as against Rs.8,750/-agreed into by the parties in the contract for sale, by relying on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Pratap Lakshman Muchandi and Ors. v. Shamlal Uddavadas Wadhwa and Ors.(AIR 2008 SC 1378), that too, without any consensus either from the appellant or the respondent.

3. The court below did not understand the legal position laid down by the Apex Court in Pratap Lakshman Muchandi's case (supra) in its correct perspective. There cannot be any change in the terms and conditions arising out of a contract for sale or obligation annexed to it at the instance of the court. The court cannot dictate or deviate from any term or condition enumerated in the contract for sale between the parties or agreed into by the parties and as such, it is not within the jurisdiction of the court to re-fix the sale consideration as against what is agreed into by the parties though it is within the jurisdiction of the court under Section 20 of the Act to work out equity by ordering any additional sum to the plaintiff, when specific performance is denied on account of the discretion to be exercised under that provision. That does not mean that the court can vary or alter or substitute the terms and conditions of the contract while enforcing it or while granting specific performance. No such authority is vested with the court to deviate from the terms and conditions either in substitution or in addition or to give enhanced sale consideration as against what is agreed into by the parties. At the same time, by exercising the jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act, the court is well equipped to order any sum to be paid to the plaintiff instead of granting specific performance so as to strike a balance based on equity, good conscience and fairness, the basic principles which govern the special provision, I would say the extraordinary provision, Section 20 of the Act, an exception to the general principle to grant decree, when it is found lawful to do so. The discretion that can be exercised under Section 20 of the Act though resting on the principles of equity, good conscience and fairness, has to be exercised not to grant specific performance even if it is lawful to do so, more specifically the discretion has to exercised in a negative way not to grant the relief of specific performance. Primarily, the discretion has to be exercised so as to compensate the plaintiff by striking a balance by ordering payment instead of granting a decree of specific performance. Section 20 of the Act reads as follows:

“20. Discretion as to decreeing specific performance

(1) The jurisdiction to decree specific performance is discretionary, and the court is not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so; but the discretion of the court is not arbitrary but sound and reasonable, guided by judicial principles and capable of correction by a court of appeal.

(2) The following are cases in which the court may properly exercise discretion not to decree specific performance:

(a) where the terms of the contract or the conduct of the parties at the time of entering into the contract or the other circumstances under which the contract was entered into are such that the contract, though not voidable, gives the plaintiff an unfair advantage over the defendant; or

(b) where the performance of the contract would involve some hardship on the defendant which he did not foresee, whereas its no