Judicial discretion in specific performance cases necessitates consideration of the parties' motives and circumstances, rather than mere legal compliance.

JUDGMENT

T. Amarnath Goud, J. - This appeal has been filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the Judgment dated 18.03.2021 and decree dated 24.03.2021, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Court No.4, West Tripura, Agartala in Case No. Title Suit No.52 of 2016.

2. The facts leading to this present appeal are that the defendant-respondent of this suit had entered into an agreement executed on 01.06.2015 that the suit land measuring 0.0350 acres classified as Bastu(Nal), C.S. Plot No.3766/33223(P), Khatian No.135, Mouja-Agartala Sheet No.5 and Tahashil- Sadar West presently Bordowali would be sold out by the defendant-respondent to the plaintiff-appellant on consideration amount of Rs.37,00,000/-. As per the agreement, plaintiff-appellant had paid Rs.5,00,000/- to the defendant as earnest money and it was settled that the rest amount of Rs.32,00,000/- would be paid within 30.09.2015. It is also mentioned in the agreement that after receipt of the rest amount within the time stipulated in the agreement, the defendant would execute the sale deed of the suit land. But despite of repeated requests by the plaintiff-appellant, the defendant-respondent did not receive the rest amount and the sale deed has not been executed in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. On this, the plaintiff-appellant issued a legal notice on 28.09.2015 and a subsequent notice dated 09.03.2016. In response to the notice dated 09.03.2016, the defendant-respondent refused to specifically perform the terms of the agreement dated 01.06.2015 and also refused to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff-appellant.

3. Hence the plaintiff-appellant as plaintiff intuited the original suit for specific performance of agreement dated 01.06.2015 which was registered as T.S.52 of 2016 before the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, West Tripura.

4. On receipt of summon, defendant-respondent as defendant contested this suit by filing a written statement. In the written statement, defendant denied all the averments made in the plaint. On the other hand, the defendant's case is that due to extreme economic hardship and fatal kidney disease of her husband, Late Dayal Sundar Das, who expired on 16.07.2015, the defendant had requested the plaintiff to help her with the interest-free refundable loan of Rs.5,00,000/ to tide over her family crises. Due to long-standing intimate relation between the families of the defendant and the plaintiff, it was agreed by the plaintiff to pay Rs.5,00,000/- to the defendant as loan by executing a hand note to refund the money showing her homestead property as mortgage. Accordingly, she had received the money after executing a hand note/undertaking to refund the money and the defendant is ready to refund the said loan amount to the plaintiff. It is also stated that there was no agreement for specific performance of contract as alleged in the plaint. Hence according to the defendant, the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit and prayed for dismissing the suit.

5. After considering the pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed issues in the said suit which is as follows:-

'i. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and nature?

ii. Whether there is any cause of action for the plaintiff to file this case?

iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get decree for getting sale deed registered in favour of him in respect of the suit land?

iv. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get decree of specific performance of contract for sale dated 01.06.2015?

v. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree as prayed for?'

6. The plaintiff to prove his case exami