The Chief Justice.-This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondent for specific performance of an agreement to assign the decree in O.S. No. 208 of 1932, on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai obtained by the appellant as a result of the decision of this Court in A.S. No. 237 of 1934.

The agreement was dated 17th December, 1942, and there is now no dispute that it was executed by the defendant who had full knowledge of what he was doing. In his evidence he admitted that though he was not originally agreeable to execute the deed of assignment of the decree, he eventually agreed to do so and executed the agreement, Exhibit P-2. There was an attempt in the Court below to establish a case of coercion which vitiated the agreement, but the attempt altogether failed. On a perusal of the evidence of the defendant himself and the other three witnesses examined on his behalf, there is no doubt left in our minds that the agreement was duly executed by the defendant and was intended to be acted upon. The defendant’s case was that the transaction was brought about at the instance of two of the judgment-debtors in O.S. No. 208 of 1932 and the plaintiff was merely a name lender. Very probably it was so; but we fail to see how that fact can have any material bearing on the rights and liabilities of the parties to this suit.

The defendant acknowledged in P-2 receipt of Rs. 13,100 the consideration for the assignment of the decree. But his case as developed in his evidence was that out of this amount only Rs. 11, 100 had been received by him from P.W.1, Raman Chettiar. The burden lay heavily on the defendant to establish his case in view of the express acknowledgment in Exhibit P-2. The amount of Rs. 11,100 was alleged to have been paid in three instalments by cheques but no attempt was made to have the cheques produced nor were the accounts of the defendant produced to show that the amounts were received as alleged towards the agreement to assign the decree and not in respect of dealings between the defendant and Raman Chettiar. In the absence of reliable evidence in proof of the defendant’s case, it must be held that the full amount of consideration recited in Exhibit P-2 was paid to the defendant. There is really no defence to the suit for specific performance which was rightly decreed by the Court below.

The learned Subordinate Judge, in addition to the relief of specific performance which he granted to the plaintiff, also awarded him Rs. 1,000 as damages sustained by him on account of the breach of contract on the part of the defendant. In the plaint there was no specific prayer for the award of damages in addition to the grant of specific performance. There was an alternative plea that in case the specific performance was not ordered, the defendant may be directed to refund the sum of Rs. 13,100 with interest at 6 per cent, per annum from 17th December, 1942, as also Rs. 2,000 as damages for loss of profits. The defendant was therefore not called upon to meet the plaintiff’s claim for damages in addition to the grant of specific performance. The learned Judge, however, thought that this did not matter and that the failure to ask for damages in addition to the substantive relief of specific performance would not disentitle the plaintiff to damages being granted. He relied on the ruling in the Arya Pradeshak Prithinidhi Sabha v. Lahori Mal1, in support of his conclusion. No doubt that decision appears to lay down, though the report is very meagre, that the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance can be awarded damages not only in lieu of but in addition to specific performance even though the plaintiff might not have specifically prayed for such a relief. As authorities for this proposition the learned Judges cited the rulings in Callianji Harjivan v. Narsi Tricum2 and Kalliandas v. Tulsidas3, but in neither case was there an award of damages in addition to the grant of specific performance. The learned J

Click Here to Read the rest of this document