The court clarified that the exercise of discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act is essential in evaluating an application for specific performance, particularly concerning the competency of the contracting parties.

J U D G M E N T

The decree for specific performance of an agreement for sale is under challenge by the defendants.

2. According to the plaintiff, on 14.05.2010, Raghavan, the late father of the defendants entered into Ext.A2 agreement for sale with the plaintiff in respect of 2.400 cents of property. The sale consideration was fixed at ` 7 lakhs per cent. An amount of ` 2 lakh was paid as advance sale consideration. The period fixed for performance was three months. Raghavan died on 05.08.2010. The defendants refused to honour the agreement. It is accordingly that the suit is filed. 3. The defendants denied the execution of Ext.A2 agreement by their predecessor Raghavan. According to the defendants late Raghavan was aged 93 years at the time of Ext.A2 agreement and was suffering from dementia. He was not competent to enter into Ext.A2, is the contention. It was also contended that the consideration fixed under Ext.A2 is very low when compared to the market value of the property.

4. The trial court negatived the contention of the defendants regarding the mental capacity of late Raghavan. It was noticed that there is no evidence to prove the allegation of incompetency of Raghavan to enter into the contract (Ext.A2). The trial court also noticed that, in March and April, 2010, Raghavan had carried out transactions in his bank account. It is also held that, inadequacy of consideration is not a sufficient reason to hold against Ext.A2 agreement. 5. I have heard learned counsel Sri.G.Krishna Kumar on behalf of the appellants-defendants and Sri.Jolly John, the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff.

The points that arise for determination are:-

(i) Is the finding of the trial court with regard to competency of late Raghavan to enter into Ext.A2 agreement, sustainable on evidence?

(ii) Has there been failure by the trial court to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction vested in it under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act to consider whether a decree for specific performance is liable to be granted ?

(iii) Do the materials on record justify exercise of discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act to grant a decree for specific performance ?

6. Firstly I proceed to consider the contention regarding the mental competency of Raghavan to enter into Ext.A2 agreement. The signature of late Raghavan in Ext.A2 agreement is not in dispute. It is the contention that late Raghavan was suffering from dementia and was not competent to enter into Ext.A2 agreement. The documentary evidence relied on by the defendants to prove the contention are Ext.B2 series emails and Ext.B4 medical prescription. It is claimed that in May 2007 Raghavan went to the United States of America in connection with the marriage in his daughter's (D5) family. His daughter, the 5th defendant, is a Psychiatrist. She diagnosed that Raghavan was suffering from dementia. The said fact was communicated to the other children of Raghavan through Ext.B2 series e- mails. The said e-mails were at a point of time when there were no disputes between the parties. After Raghavan returned home, he was prescribed medicines by the wife of the second defendant, who is a Doctor, in consultation with the Psychiatrist, Dr.Venugopal. The medical condition and the treatment of Raghavan has been narrated in detail by DW3-the 4th defendant in the proof affidavit. There is absolutely no challenge with regard to the same in cross-examination. In the circumstances, the evidence amply proves that Raghavan was suffering from dementia and was incompetent to enter into Ext.A2 agreement has been established, it is contended.

7. The fact that Raghavan went to USA in May 2007 as contended by the defendants, is evidenced by Ext.B3 passport of late Raghavan. So also, as argued by the learned counsel for the defendants, the medical condition and treatment of late Raghavan, though elaborated in the chief affidavit of DW1 and DW2 viz. the 4th and 5th defendants, there is absolutely no challenge in