The court invoked Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and held that enforcing specific performance would create hardship on the first defendant and be inequitable.

T. RAVINDRAN, J.

1. In this second appeal, challenge is made to the judgment and decree dated 14.02.2002 passed in A.S. No. 206 of 2001 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Erode, reversing the judgment an decree dated 07.02.2000 passed in O.S. No. 72 of 1997 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Gopichettipalayam.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the rankings in the trial court.

3. Suit for specific performance.

4. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the suit property belong to the first defendant and he had executed a registered general power of attorney deed in favour of the second defendant on 26.12.1995 in respect of the suit property empowering him to sell the same to the third parties and based on the said power of attorney, the second defendant had agreed to sell the suit property in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- and he received a sum of Rs. 2,15,000/- from the plaintiff as advance and the parties had agreed that the balance sale consideration of Rs. 10,000/- should be paid within a period of one year i.e., on or before 13.11.1997 and complete the sale transaction and accordingly, the parties had entered into the registered sale agreement with reference to the sale of the suit property as per the terms contained therein on 13.11.1996 and while so, when the plaintiff was endeavoring to purchase the suit property from the second defendant, the first defendant sent a notice on 27.02.1997 to the plaintiff and the second defendant and the same had been received by the plaintiff and in the said notice, the first defendant had apprised that he had cancelled the power of attorney deed executed in favour of the second defendant by way of a cancellation deed dated 18.01.1997 and accordingly directed the plaintiff to hand over the papers containing the signatures of the first defendant obtained by the plaintiff and to the same, the plaintiff had sent a reply containing true facts on 17.02.1997 and in the reply notice, the plaintiff has averred about the execution of the sale agreement dated 13.11.1996 and also informed the first defendant to receive the balance sale price and execute the sale deed as per the terms of the sale agreement, failing which the plaintiff would be necessitated to seek the legal redressal in a court of law and to the said reply notice, the first defendant sent a re-joinder on 09.04.1997 containing facts contrary to the truth and the claim of the first defendant that the sale agreement dated 13.11.1996 is invalid is false and on the other hand, only based on the power of attorney granted in favour of the second defendant, the sale agreement had been entered into between the plaintiff and the second defendant and therefore the sale agreement date 13.11.1996 is binding on the first defendant and as per the terms thereof, the first defendant is bound to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and obtain the sale deed and it is only the first defendant, who is not willing to come forward to execute the sale deed and the plaintiff is also ready to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs. 10,000/- in the court and accordingly it is stated that the plaintiff has been necessitated to lay the suit against the defendants for appropriate reliefs.

5. The case of the first defendant is that the suit laid by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is true that the suit property belong to the first defendant and it is also true that the first defendant had executed the registered general power of attorney deed in favour of the second defendant, however the same had been cancelled by the first defendant by a deed of cancellation on 18.01.1997 and on 26.12.1995 itself the first defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 2000/- from the plaintiff and executed a mortgage deed in respect of the suit property and the said mortgage