Discretionary relief in specific performance cases must consider readiness, willingness, and circumstances of coercion, balancing hardship for both parties.

JUDGMENT :

This Second Appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2011 passed in A.S.No.98 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur reversing the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2008 passed in O.S.No.4 of 2007 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee.

2. The appellants are the plaintiffs. The suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for specific performance against the deceased defendant and that has been decreed by the Trial Court. However, on the First Appeal preferred by the legal heirs of the deceased defendant, the First Appellate Court has allowed the First Appeal and reversed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiffs have filed this Second Appeal.

3. Heard Mr.N.Sridhar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.C.T.Mohan, learned Senior Counsel for R2 to R6 and Mrs.P.Radhika, learned counsel for R7 to R9 and perused the materials available on record.

4. The short facts pleaded in the plaint are as under:

The suit property was originally belonged to the deceased defendant. On 12.08.2004, the first plaintiff and his deceased brother Rangan have entered into a sale agreement with the deceased defendant to purchase the suit property for a sum of Rs.4,64,000/-. The suit property measures 1 acre and 45 cents and it has been agreed to be sold at the rate of Rs.3200/- per cent. The defendant had already obtained a loan from Rangan on 17.12.2001 and from the first plaintiff on 25.09.2002. In this regard, the defendant has to settle a sum of Rs.4,64,000/- and he was not in a position to repay the same and hence, the defendant had come forward to sell the suit property for the amount liable to be paid by him towards the loan availed by him from the first plaintiff and his brother Rangan. As the defendant had obtained a loan from the Land Development Bank, Poonamallee, he has sought 17 months time to discharge the loan. Later, the defendant has stated that the above loan has been waived by the Government.

4.1. As the first plaintiff and his brother Rangan had already paid the sale consideration, the question of readiness and willingness will not arise and it is for the deceased defendant to execute the sale deed. The first plaintiff's brother Rangan died on 24.09.2005 and the plaintiffs 2 to 5 are his legal heirs. As the deceased defendant did not come forward to execute the sale deed as per the sale agreement dated 12.08.2004, the plaintiffs have sent a legal notice on 19.12.2006 and the same was received by the defendant on 26.12.2006, but he did not send any reply. The plaintiffs were in enjoyment of the suit property as part performance and the defendant had attempted to sell the suit property. Therefore, the plaintiffs had filed a suit for specific performance.

5. The written statement filed by the defendant reads as under:

The defendant never agreed to sell the suit property. It is false to state that the defendant has to repay a sum of Rs.4,64,000/- to the first plaintiff and his brother. The defendant did not avail any loan from the first plaintiff and his brother as stated. The defendant had availed a loan of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.50,000/- by executing a promissory note and another Rs.50,000/- through mortgage. The defendant's signature has been obtained by force and coercion. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of specific performance.

6. During the course of the trial, on the side of the plaintiffs, one witness has been examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On the side of the defendant, three witnesses were