The court held that specific performance can be denied if it would cause undue hardship or is inequitable, emphasizing that discretion in such matters must be exercised judiciously.

1.M/s. Santosh Chandra Banerjee and Sons Private Limited (referred to as the company) was heavily indebted to the appellant. The company was under the management of the respondent's husband and father - in - law. In payment of a debt of Rs. 91,917.65, the respondent on 3rd Nov. 1967 agreed to sell Premises No. 24/1, Mandeville Garden (referred to as the premises) to the appellant for a total consideration of Rs. 1 lakh. The premises consists of a two storyed brick built residential house and 7 cottahs, 1 chittacks and 43 sft. of land. The consideration for the sale was to be paid partly by way of adjustment of the debt of Rs. 91,917.65 claimed by the appellant against the company and the balance sum of Rs. 9,908.37 by cheque at the time of execution and registration of the conveyance. However, on the request of the respondent, the amount of Rs. 9,908.37 was also made over by the appellant to the respondent.

2. The respondent having failed to complete the sale, in 1969 the appellant filed a suit with leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent for specific performance of the agreement dated 3rd Nov. 1967, a decree for damages amounting to Rs. 15,826.62 and further sums of Rs. 1 lakh from the date of the suit until execution and registration of the conveyance, in the alternative a decree for the refund of a sum of Rs. 1 lakh with interest thereon @ 12 per cent per annum from the respective dates of payment till the date of refund.

3. The respondent filed a written statement denying the plaintiff's claim altogether. According to her she had received no benefit under the agreement and had signed the various letters pertaining to the sale of the premises at the instance of her husband. She claimed that the market price of the premises at the relevant time was Rs. 2.50 lakhs. She also pleaded that the premises was the dwelling house and the only property of the respondent and that she along with her three unmarried daughters would be on the streets if forced to sell the property to the appellant. Various other claims were raised which are not necessary to be set out in detail.

4. The appellant called Kasipati Mukherjee, a partner of the appellant and Mr. Achala Nath Ganguly, the appellant's solicitor as witnesses. On the respondent's part she examined herself as a witness. One Samar Banerjee, Engineer and Valuer was also called in support of her case that the premises were grossly undervalued at the time of sale.
Seven issues were framed by the learned single Judge :
"1. Has the Court jurisdiction to try the suit?
2. Is the suit maintainable as framed?
3. Was there any agreement for sale between the parties as alleged in the plaint?
4. Was the alleged agreement an agreement for mortgate by way of conditional sale?
5. Is the plaintiff entitled to get a decree of specific performance of contract?
6. Is the plaintiff entitled to get the alternative decree for damages?
7. To what other reliefs, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?"

5. By a judgment delivered on 6th December, 1990 the learned Judge decided issues 1, 2, 3 and 4 in the appellant