The discretionary nature of the relief of specific performance under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act and the consideration of the terms and conditions of the agreement, intention, and conduct of the parties in determining the entitlement for specific performance.

JUDGMENT

1. The appeal suit on hand is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hosur in O.S.No.40 of 2010.

2. The appellant in the appeal suit is the plaintiff in the suit and the respondents in the appeal suit are the defendants in the suit.

3. For the sake of convenience, the ranking of the parties in the appeal suit would be referred to as per their ranks before the Trial Court.

4. The facts in nutshell as narrated in the plaint are that the plaintiff instituted the suit for specific performance. The plaintiff had entered into the Agreement for Sale with the defendants for the purchase of the suit mentioned property. The total sale consideration fixed was Rs.15 lakhs and out of the total sale consideration of Rs.14,75,000/- had been paid by the plaintiff to the defendants as advance. The balance sale consideration of Rs.25,000/- was agreed to be settled within a period of three years i.e., on or before 17.01.2009 and accordingly, the defendants had agreed to execute the Sale Deed.

5. The complaint set out in the plaint is that the plaintiff all along was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and approached the defendants for the enforcement of the suit Sale Agreement. However, the defendants were evading the execution of sale with reference to the suit mentioned property, by receiving the balance sale consideration and consequently, the plaintiff issued a notice and instituted the suit for specific performance to enforce the suit Sale Agreement Ex.A-1 dated 18.01.2006

6. The defendants disputed the contentions raised by the plaintiff and denied the allegations set out in the plaint by filing written statement on 15.03.2011. The defendants mainly stated that, at no point of time, they had intended to sell the suit mentioned property and in fact, the suit Sale Agreement was executed in lieu of the loan amount borrowed by the defendants from the plaintiff as a security. In other words, the suit Sale Agreement was executed by way of security with reference to the loan amount given by the plaintiff to the defendants. Thus, there was no intention on the part of the defendants to sell the suit mentioned property.

7. The defendants 3 to 5 also filed written statement, denying the averments set out in the plaint. The said defendants also have reiterated that the suit Sale Agreement was signed between the parties towards security in lieu of the loan borrowed by the defendants from the plaintiff. It is stated, in their written statement, that there was no intention to sell the property and the plaintiff also has not seen the property and the signatures were obtained in the Sale Agreement towards security for the loan borrowed.

8. It is further contended that the suit property is a valuable one and even during the relevant point of time, when the defendants and the plaintiff had signed the suit Sale Agreement, the market value of the suit mentioned property was about Rs.15 lakhs and it is an Industrial Area and under these circumstances, the sale consideration fixed is not in commensuration of the market value of the suit schedule property and for all these reasons, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants reiterated that the very nature of transaction and the terms and conditions agreed between the parties in the suit Sale Agreement reveals that there was no intention for the sale of the suit schedule property and the agreement was executed in lieu of the loan amount borrowed by the defendants from the plaintiff. Thus, the judgment and decree of the Trial Court is perverse and therefore, the judgment and decree of the Trial Court is not in accordance with law and accordingly, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

10. The Trial Court framed the following issues for consideration:-

"(1) Whether the suit Sale Agreement dated 18.01.2006 is true and genuine or not ?

(2) Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to