Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 32317
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
MRS. M.R.ANITHA, J
ANTONY – Appellant
Versus
PRAKASH – Respondent
RSA NO. 391 OF 2012 | AS 45/2010 | OS 99/2002
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S.JIJI
For the Respondents: LATHEESH SEBASTIAN
The court held that the relief of specific performance is discretionary and should not be granted if the defendant does not come with clean hands, reflecting equitable principles.
Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 20 - Discretionary relief for specific performance of contract - Conditions for refusing specific performance include unfair advantage or unforeseen hardship - Appellant denied execution of sale agreement and claimed subsequent unrelated debts - Courts found evidence of agreement and plaintiffs readiness to perform. (Paras 2, 12, 20, 24)
(B) Appeal - Nature of judicial discretion - Courts are not bound to grant specific performance merely because it is lawful; discretion must be sound and reasonable, not arbitrary. (Paras 16, 18)
Facts of the case:
This case arose from a suit for specific performance regarding a property sale agreement entered into by the plaintiff and defendant with a consideration of Rs.25,000, out of which Rs.19,000 was paid as an advance. The defendant’s refusal to execute the agreement led to the lawsuit. (Paras 2-4)
Findings of Court:
The courts below found the sale agreement to be valid, confirming that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform as stipulated, and granted specific performance to the plaintiff. The courts found no reason to question the validity of the agreement. (Paras 5-12)
Issues: The primary issue was whether the courts correctly exercised discretion in granting specific performance and considered the defendant's alternative claim for the return of the advance amount. (Paras 8, 14)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the discretionary relief of specific performance is not mandatory; however, the appellant's denial of the agreement and failure to substantiate claims of hardship undermined their position, as they did not approach the court with clean hands. (Paras 20, 24)
Result: The second appeal was dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of specific performance suit (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. trial court's findings on contract execution (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. defendant's arguments against contract enforcement (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. discretionary nature of specific performance relief (Para 13 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. principles governing the exercise of discretion in specific performance (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 10 th day of January, 2023
This regular second appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree in A.S. No.45/2010 on the file of District Court, Thodupuzha, which in turn arise out of the judgment and decree in O.S. No.99/2002 on the file of Munsiff’s Court, Devikulam.
2. Defendant is the appellant. The suit is one for specific performance of contract and alternatively for return of advance amount. (Parties would hereafter be referred as per their status before the trial court). Plaintiff entered into an agreement for sale of plaint A schedule property with the defendant on 03.01.2002 agreeing to purchase the property on a total consideration of Rs.25,000/- and on the date of agreement Rs.19,000/- was paid as advance. The agreement was to transfer the property on or before 30.03.2002 after measuring the property. Plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. On 20.03.2002 plaintiff informed the defendant about his readiness and willingness to perform the contract, but the defendant failed to comply the conditions in the agreement. In spite of repeated demands he was not prepared to execute the document receiving the balance consideration. So, a notice was issued on 18.05.2002 calling upon the defendant to execute the document receiving the balance sale consideration. Defendant refused to accept the notice thereafter the suit was filed.
3. Defendant filed written statement admitting that the plaint schedule property belongs to him but the agreement for sale with the plaintiff is denied. The demand from the plaintiff to execute the agreement is also denied. According to him, plaintiff has been conducting a general store cum tea shop at Ellakkalkara. Defendant used to purchase house hold articles from the plaintiff’s shop and an amount of Rs.7,750/-was due from the defendant and as a settlement of that account defendant agreed to pay Rs.10,000/- inclusive of interest. As a security for the same, the plaintiff demanded blank signed stamp paper. On 17.02.2002 the defendant repaid the entire amount of Rs.10,000/- in the presence of witnesses. But the plaintiff did not return the blank signed stamp paper. That has been misused for concocting the agreement and thereafter the suit was filed to extort money. Hence, there is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit. He is a coolie and residing in the house situated in the plaint schedule property. If the suit is decreed he will be put to hardship and loss which cannot be compensated in terms of money.
4. PW1 and PW2 examined. Exts.A1 to A6 marked from the side of the plaintiff. DW1 to DW3 examined and Ext.B1 marked from the side of the defendant.
5. On evaluating the facts, circumstances and evidence the trial court found that the defendant executed Ext.A1 agreement and plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of contract and accordingly the suit was decreed.
6. Against which the appeal was filed and the 1 st appellate court on re-appreciating the facts, circumstances and evidence confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and dismissed the appeal.
7. Having lost before the two forums appellant approaches this Court. Notice was issued to the respondents. Both sides were heard.
8. According to the learned counsel for the defendant, the reason for not granting the alternative relief for return of advance money has not been considered by both courts. It is also his contention that the specific performance of contract is a discretionary relief and the court is not bound to grant the relief merely because it is lawful
