The court ruled that specific performance can be denied based on equitable considerations, emphasizing the need to assess circumstances of coercion and hardship on the defendant.

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 30th day of November, 2022 A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

This appeal arises from a judgment granting specific performance in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant, who is the appellant herein, entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff on 21/7/2009 to sell 50 cents of land belonging to her, lying in a prominent area of the Kozhikode Corporation, on a consideration of Rs.1,70,000/- per Cent. On the day of agreement of sale, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.20 lakhs. The plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance after sending a registered notice which was returned unclaimed. The learned Sub Judge, Kozhikode, noting that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, granted decree in favour of the plaintiff.

2. The defendant, the appellant herein, had not disputed the agreement of sale and filed a written statement admitting the same. After admitting the agreement, an attempt was made to amend the written statement. The defendant incorporated a contention that she never intended to sell the property. This was disallowed by the Sub Judge and, on a challenge before this Court, the said order was also affirmed. However, before the Court below, she narrated the circumstances under which she happened to enter into an agreement. According to her, her husband is a drunkard and she was forced to sign the agreement as coerced by her husband. She said that she had two girl children in the wedlock and the wayward life of her husband landed the family into a debt-

trap. She testified that her husband hails from a rich family and he sold all of his properties for a paltry amount. He is also a lawyer without active practice. It is also stated by her that her husband insisted her to sell the property to discharge his liability of Rs.20 lakhs and when she refused it, he threatened her that he will commit suicide. It is when she was emotionally distraught and distressed circumstances, she was forced to enter into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff. She also testified that she had no other means other than the plaint schedule property which she required for meeting the expenses for education and marriage of her children. She also produced Ext.B1 to B6 to prove the treatment of her husband in different hospitals for de-addiction.

3. This is not a case where we are persuaded to hold that the plaintiff was at default. The defendant is the daughter of a former M.L.A and belonged to a well-to-do family. The circumstances in which she was forced to enter into a sale agreement cannot be ignored by this Court while exercising the discretion in granting specific performance. We are also aware of the steep increase of the value of the property and appellant counsel submitted that the present market value of the plaint schedule property will be at least Rs.15-20 lakhs per Cent. The inadequacy of consideration though cannot be a reason to decline specific performance, the Court cannot ignore the escalation of the price, pending proceedings, coupled with other facts to deny specific performance to the plaintiff. The defendant is a lady. She fought her own way to overcome the barriers created by her husband. She has two girl children. She is not disputing the agreement of sale but she candidly admitted the circumstances which led to the signing of the agreement of sale.

It is apparent that at the time of executing the agreement, the price was on the lower side. The case of the plaintiff himself is that the defendant had intention to wriggle out of the agreement to sell the land for a higher price. It may be in a circumstance due to the compulsion from her husband that she was forced to execute the sale agreement. Section 20 (2) of the Specific Relief Act , 1963 gives leeway to the Court to exercise discretion not to decree Specific performance. (2)

reads thus:

“Discretion and powers of Court

20. Discretion as to decreeing specific performance.-(2) The following are cases in which the