The court's decision highlights the discretionary nature of specific performance under Sec.20 of the Specific Relief Act, considering equitable principles and the circumstances of the case.

K.GOVINDARAJAN, J.

The plaintiff in C.S.No.294/1980 having aggrieved by the judgment an decree passed by the learned Judge, dated 17.11.1993, has filed the above Original Side Appeal.

2. The first appellant/plaintiff filed a suit in C.S.No.294/1980 on the file of this Court for specific performance of the contract entered into with the defendants 1 and 2 under the agreement of sale dated 4.7.1979 marked as Ex.P1, or in the alternative for damages for Rs.20,00,000/- and for refund of a sum of Rs.15,000/-received by defendants 1 and 2 as advance.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendants 1 and 2 are the owners of the land mentioned as 'A' Schedule property and the 3rd defendant, the mother of defendants 1 and 2 is the owner of the superstructure constructed over the said land, which is mentioned as 'B' Schedule in the plaint. Before entering into the agreement under Ex.P1, in the litigation between defendants 1 and 2 on the one side and the 3rd defendant on the other side, in C.S.No.185/1975, they entered into a compromise and a decree was passed on 21.12.1977 under which defendants 1 and 2 are entitled to purchase the superstructure on payment of the market value of the same. Defendants 1 and 2 have entered into an agreement to sell both 'A' and 'B' schedule properties to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.34,97,500/- payable by the plaintiff to defendants 1 and 2 after securing sale from the 3rd defendant with respect to 'B' Schedule property. Since defendants 1 and 2 have not secured the sale in their favour with respect to the 'B' Schedule property and executed the sale deed with respect to the suit property as per the agreement Ex.P1, the plaintiff came forward with the above suit.

4. The first defendant filed a written statement and the second defendant adopted the same. According to the defendants 1 and 2, the plaintiff prevailed upon the defendants 1 and 2 to sign the agreement taking advantage of the dispute between defendants 1 and 2 and the 3rd defendant. They have also stated that though the value was fixed for the 'B' Schedule property by the Commissioner, no final order was passed as the 3rd defendant objected to the same. It is their further case that the title for 'B' Schedule property has not been passed on to defendants 1 and 2, to convey the same in favour of the plaintiff. The price fixed under the agreement for the suit property was very low and the transaction cannot be gone through on the ground of frustration, impossibility, non-performance or otherwise. The transaction as a whole must fall. It is also specifically stated that the agreement is not divisible with respect to 'A' and 'B' Schedule properties. As the contingent event has not taken place, by conveying the right of 'B' Schedule property in favour of defendants 1 and 2 by the 3rd defendant, the plaintiff cannot sustain the suit for specific performance on the basis of the agreement marked as Ex.P1. Even with reference to the claim of damages, defendants 1 and 2 came forward with the case that the plaintiff is not entitled for any damages, as the plaintiff was not put to any mental agony or any sort. Defendants 1 and 2 are not liable to pay any damages as they are not guilty of breach of contract.

5. The third defendant also filed a written statement separately stating that the suit is not maintainable against her as she was not a party to the agreement marked as Ex.P1 dated 4.7.1979. It is also stated that defendants 1 and 2 have no right to enter into an agreement for sale of the superstructure in favour of the plaintiff. She came forward with the plea that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any damages against her.

6. On the basis of the above said pleadings, the learned Judge framed as many as 11 issues and one additional issue with respect to damages as claimed by the plaintiff. The learned Judge found that there is no legal impediment for enforcing the agreement by the plaintiff, that the plaintiff was ready and willi