IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Grant of decree for specific performance is discretionary and equitable relief but such discretion is required to be exercised reasonably and according to sound principles of law.
(2) Compliance of Article 299 of Constitution of India is mandatory and cannot be assumed or multiplied.

JUDGMENT

By The Court

Appellants-plaintiffs have preferred this civil regular first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing judgment and decree dated 3.12.1990 passed in civil suit No.358/1987 by the Court of Additional District Judge No.2, Jaipur City whereby and whereunder civil suit for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction filed by appellants-plaintiffs has been decided in the manner that instead of decreeing plaintiffs’ suit for specific performance and issuing directions to respondents-defendants to execute and register the sale deed, pursuant to their decision dated 15/16th April, 1980, in respect of suit shop which is already in possession of plaintiffs, a decree against defendants to refund the full sale amount of Rs.46,441/- has been passed by the trial Court by its own and plaintiffs have been held entitled for interest thereupon at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit i.e. 18.10.1985 until payment.

2. The relevant facts of the case as culled out from the record are that plaintiffs instituted civil suit for specific performance of contract and permanent injuncstion on 18.10.1985 stating inter alia that plaintiffs were tenant in the suit shop No.5/10 situated in Temple of Shri Anand Bihari Ji at Ramganj Bazar, Jaipur belonging to Devasthan Department. There has been a policy of the State Government to dispose of the unprofitable properties of Devasthan Department and in a meeting of Devasthan Properties Disposal Committee (hereinafter referred as “the Disposal Committee”) took place in the month of December, 1973, a decision was taken to dispose of properties of temple of Shri Anand Bihari Ji. Thereafter, proceedings were postponed for a long period and finally, the Disposal Committee under the chairmanship of Revenue Secretary of the State Government, in its meeting dated 15/16th April, 1980 took a decision to dispose of the vacant and unprofitable properties of Devasthan Department. Vacant properties were to be disposed of by way of public auction and in respect of properties occupied by tenants, it was decided that rent would be determined according to the norms prescribed under the Rajasthan Nazool Buildings (Disposal by Public Auction) Rule, 1971 by the Public Works Department and cost would be determined at the rate of 200 times of the rent. One month notice would be given to tenants asking to pay the due rent and the cost of property as determined within a period of one month in order to sale the property occupied by tenant and in case tenant remain fail to deposit the determined sale amount, properties would be auctioned after dispossession of the tenant. In pursuance of such decision of the defendants, rent of plaintiffs’ shop was determined at the rate of Rs.232.20/- per month and value of shop was assessed 200 time of the determined rent. Vide letter dated 22.7.1982, plaintiffs were given an offer to deposit due rent arrears of Rs.22,786.29/- and the sale price of shop is Rs.46,441/-, totaling Rs.69,187/- within one month in single installment, then only shop can be sold to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs accepted the offer and deposited the entire demanded sum of Rs.69,187/- within a period of one month and in one installment on 20.8.1982 vide receipt No.502 of book No.222403. This receipt clearly contends that a sum of Rs.69,187/- has been received as sale price of shop. Plaintiffs have pleaded that, thus a concluded contract arrived at and completed between plaintiffs and defendants. The possession of shop continued with plaintiffs as part performance of contract, plaintiffs have been ready and willing to get sale deed executed and registered and for this purpose plaintiffs regularly contacted to employees of defendants and offer to deposit the stamp charges but defendants postponed the issue by saying that let the draft sale deed be prepared. Later on, when plaintiffs realized that defendants are not taking interest in execution of the sale deed in