Chintala Vijayalaxmi vs M.Ashok Kumar Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 2883 Tel

            THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                            A.S.No.1903 of 2003

JUDGMENT:

The present Appeal Suit is filed against the judgment and

decree, dated 30.06.2003, passed in O.S.No.122 of 1995 on the file of

the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at N.T.R.

Nagar, Hyderabad, wherein and whereby, the suit filed by the 1st

respondent/plaintiff for specific performance of contract of sale

dated 13.04.1994 in respect of land admeasuring 600 square yards

forming part of 1280 square yards in Plot No.9 in Sy.No.129/1 of

Kothapet Village, Uppal Mandal, Rangareddy District, was decreed.

The appellant is the 2nd defendant, 1st respondent herein is the

plaintiff and the 2nd respondent is the 1st defendant before the trial

Court. For convenience of reference, the ranks given to the parties in

O.S.No.122 of 1995, before the trial Court, will be adopted

throughout this judgment.

The plaintiff filed the above suit against the defendants for the

following reliefs:-

1. to direct the defendants to execute and register a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff for the land measuring 600 square yards forming part of Plot No.9 in Survey No.129/1 situated at Kothapet Village, Uppal Mandal, L.B.Nagar Municipality, Ranga Reddy District.

GSD, J as_1903_2003

2. If the defendants fail to execute and register the sale deed, the Court may execute and register the sale deed in respect of the said property in favour of the plaintiff and also

3. to direct the defendants to deliver the suit schedule property to the plaintiff.

It is alleged in the plaint that the defendants are the owners of

open land admeasuring 1280 square yards bearing Plot No.9 in

Sy.No.129/1 situated at Kothapet Village, Uppal Mandal, having

purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 18.03.1989.

The plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale, dated 13.04.1994

with the defendants to purchase the land admeasuring 600 square

yards out of 1280 square yards for a total consideration of

Rs.1,50,000/-. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.1,45,000/- to the

defendants as part of sale consideration on the date of the agreement

and the same was acknowledged by the defendants. Under the

agreement referred to above, it was stipulated that the balance

consideration of Rs.5,000/- shall be paid by the plaintiff to the

defendants at the time of registration of sale deed, which will be on

or before 06.07.1994. At the time of agreement of sale, the

defendants handed over the link documents to the plaintiff. The

plaintiff has expressed his willingness to the defendants that he is

ready much earlier than 06.07.1994 with the amount and requested

the defendants to execute the sale deed and receive the amount at

GSD, J as_1903_2003

the time of registration, but for the reasons best known, the

defendants were evading to do so. Though the plaintiff paid almost

the entire sale consideration except a paltry sum of Rs.5,000/- and

offered to pay the balance amount, the defendants evaded to fulfil

their obligation under the agreement of sale with an ulterior motive

to deprive the plaintiff of his rights and benefits arising out of the

transaction. As the defendants failed to give any response to the

repeated oral demands made by the plaintiff, the plaintiff got issued

a legal notice dated 03.01.1995 to the defendants. The 1st defendant

refused to receive the said notice, whereas the 2nd defendant

received the said notice. After receiving the same, the defendants

got issued reply on 27.02.1995. It is further stated that the allegation

made in the reply notice that the plaintiff was not ready to pay the

balance amount is incorrect and untenable. The plaintiff has always

been ready and willing to perform his part of the terms of agreement

and still continued to be ready to fulfil his obligation under the

agreement. It is also stated in the plaint that in view of the fact that

almost the entire consideration was paid at the time of agreement,

the possession of the schedule property was delivered to the

plaintiff. However, after the receipt of the legal notice, the

defendants trespassed into the suit schedule property and, therefore,

the plaintiff was constrained to seek for possession of the suit

schedule property also.

GSD, J as_1903_2003

The 1st defendant filed written statement denying material

allegations of the plaint, inter alia contending that the suit filed by

the plaintiff for specific performance is neither maintainable in law

nor on facts. It is admitted that the defendants are owners of plot

No.9. It is also stated that the agreement of sale was executed only

as a security to the hand loan advanced by the plaintiff's attorney

holder M.Linga Murthy, as such a paltry amount of Rs.5,000/- was

mentioned in the said agreement of sale. The G.P.A. holder of

plaintiff had executed through the defendants, a G.P.A. in favour of

one Anand, who is none other than the sister's son of G.P.A. holder

of the plaintiff. The said G.P.A. was executed on 13.04.1994 itself to

carry out the terms of agreement of sale dated 13.04.1994. It is also

stated that having paid a sum of Rs.1,45,000/-, the question of

seeking time till 06.07.1994 shows that the agreement of sale is not

executed as a sale transaction. It is further stated that the 1st

defendant has not received any legal notice as alleged in the plaint.

As per the terms of the agreement of sale, the time is the essence of

the contract. As the terms are not complied with, the same has been

deemed to have been cancelled. The G.P.A. holder of the plaintiff is

a licensed money lender. In the said money transactions, the

defendants are forced to sign on several sale papers due to the

pressures of the G.P.A. holder to pay the amount. The 1st defendant

addressed a letter on 07.12.1994 intimating the cancellation of the

GSD, J as_1903_2003

agreement of sale and also the cancellation of the G.P.A. dated

13.04.1994 and to return back the original document. It is further

stated that the name of the plaintiff was shown only as dummy to

avoid taxation problem. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the suit.

The 2nd defendant filed written statement denying material

allegations of the plaint, inter alia contending that the alleged

agreement of sale is time barred. The G.P.A. holder of the plaintiff

obtained a registered G.P.A. from the defendants in respect of the

suit schedule property on 13.04.1994 from the Sub-Registrar's Office,

Uppal, which was cancelled on 10.08.1994. While supporting the

other contentions of the written statement of the 1st defendant, this

defendant stated that no possession was delivered nor the

defendants trespassed as alleged in the plaint. The present suit was

filed at the instance of the brother of the plaintiff by name Linga

Murthy and prayed to dismiss the suit.

On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the trial court

framed the following issues-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 13.04.1994 in respect of the suit schedule property?

2. To what relief?

During trial, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and got

marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 was

examined and no documents were marked.

GSD, J as_1903_2003

The trial Court, on consideration of the rival contentions and

also the entire material available on record, decreed the suit.

Against the said judgment and decree, the present appeal is filed by

the 2nd defendant.

Heard Sri D.V.Seetharam Murthy, learned Senior Counsel

appearing on behalf of Ms. Pitla Sailaja, learned Counsel for the

appellant/2nd defendant; Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned

Senior Counsel for the 1st respondent/plaintiff, Sri Anjaneyulu

Chandubatla, learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent/1st defendant

and perused the record.

Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/2nd defendant

would submit that as per Ex.A1 agreement, out of total

consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- only Rs.5,000/- remained to be paid

by 06.07.1994, plaintiff was put in possession of the suit schedule

property and link documents were also handed over to the plaintiff

and under clause (12) of Ex.A1, defendants executed G.P.A. bearing

No.304 of 1994 in favour of K.Anand, a nominee of the plaintiff's

relative exclusively to carry out the terms of Ex.A1 and the plaintiff

does not know the contents of said G.P.A. and also who signed on

the plaint; and that Ex.A1 was not sufficiently stamped or registered

as it was a formal document for the purpose of security to a hand

loan. He further submits that if at all the sale transaction between

GSD, J as_1903_2003

the plaintiff and defendants was complete in all respects, but the

plaintiff failed to explain as to why he did not get the sale deed

executed by the defendants' GPA holder in respect of the suit

schedule property after 06.07.1994, which was the time specified in

Ex.A1 for execution of a registered sale deed. He also submits that

the G.P.A., dated 13.04.1994 executed by the defendants in favour of

the said Anand, nominee of the plaintiff to carry out the terms of

Ex.A1 was cancelled on 10.08.1994. He further submits that in the

cross-examination, plaintiff admitted that he knew the defendants

through his own brother Lingamurthy and that Lingamurthy was

also present at the time of execution of Ex.A1 and he also admitted

that the said Anand, in whose favour the defendants executed a

registered G.P.A. for carrying out terms of Ex.A1, is the sister's son

of Lingamurthy. In the cross-examination done on behalf the 2nd

defendant, plaintiff admitted that he does not know who purchased

the stamp paper on Ex.A1; he had executed G.P.A. in favour of his

brother Linga Murthy; he is not an income tax assessee and after

paying the amount, he obtained the receipt but, he does not know

who signed on receipt as witnesses and he also does not know who

signed as witness on Ex.A1. Learned Senior Counsel further

submitted that the plaintiff did not examine Lingamurthy, who is

his G.P.A. holder, to rebut the allegations that Ex.A1 was executed

towards security to a loan transaction between Lingamurthy and

defendants and that the plaintiff also did not file any rejoinder to

GSD, J as_1903_2003

these allegations. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that the

plaintiff failed to discharge the initial burden that Ex.A1 was not a

security for a loan transaction by examining any of the witnesses,

who attested Ex.A1; the specific contention of the defendants is that

Ex.A1 is security to a loan transaction given to G.P.A. holder of the

plaintiff and it is for that reason it was insufficiently stamped and

not registered and that the plaintiff did not let in any rebuttal

evidence on the contention of the defendants that Ex.A1 is only a

security to a loan transaction between Lingamurthy and the

defendants. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that in her

evidence, D.W.1 admitted her signature on Ex.A1, but categorically

stated that she does not know the contents of Ex.A1 as she cannot

read English and she does not know the plaintiff; one Lingamurthy

was known to her as he was friend of her husband; her husband

signed on Ex.A1 as witness and on the instructions of her husband,

she signed Ex.A1 as she was told that for the money owed by her

husband to Lingamurthy as a surety she had to sign Ex.A1 and as

such she signed on it. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that the

trial Court ought not to have placed too much importance that the

plea of discharge was taken in the legal notice at the first instance.

Learned Senior Counsel further submits that O.S.No.120 of 1995 was

also filed for specific performance of the remaining extent of 680

square yards by Lingamurthy, as G.P.A. holder of the plaintiff

therein and the contents of agreement of sale and the averments in

GSD, J as_1903_2003

the plaint are identical. He also submits that the 1st defendant was

not examined as he was out of the Country, but unfortunately this

fact does not find place in the docket proceedings and the same was

not noted by the Advocate-Commissioner. It is for this purpose, the

1st defendant was shown as 2nd respondent in the present appeal.

He also submits that non-examination of the 1st defendant will not in

any manner prejudice to the case of the 2nd defendant in view of the

fact that D.W.1 gave evidence that Ex.A1 was a surety to a loan

transaction and it stood discharged. In support of his contentions,

he relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Parakunnan

Veetill Joseph's Son Mathew v. Nedumbara Kuruvilla's Son and

others1 and S.Rangaraju Naidu v. Thiruvarakkarasu2.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/

plaintiff would submit that the suit was filed for specific

performance and for direction to register the suit schedule property

in favour of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff had expressed his

readiness and willingness to pay the balance sale consideration of

Rs.5,000/-. He also submits that before filing the suit, a legal notice

was issued on 03.01.1995 calling upon the defendants to come

forward for registration of sale deed and a reply notice was given by

the appellant herein stating that as per the agreement of sale, the

balance consideration should have been paid on 06.07.1994 and since

AIR 1987 SC 2328

AIR 1995 SC 1769

GSD, J as_1903_2003

the same has not been paid, the agreement of sale stood cancelled

with effect from 06.07.1994. He also submits that the execution of

the agreement of sale is admitted, the payment of the consideration

amount of Rs.1,45,000/- out of Rs.1,50,000/- is also admitted and the

plea taken in the reply notice is that since the remaining amount i.e.,

Rs.5,000/- was not paid before 06.07.1994, the amount already paid

stood forfeited and the agreement of sale stood cancelled. Since the

execution of agreement of sale and the receipt of the amount of

Rs.1,45,000/- from out of Rs.1,50,000/- have been admitted, the only

contention of the appellant is that the agreement of sale stood

cancelled and the amount already paid stood forfeited since the

balance amount of Rs.5,000/- was not paid before 06.07.1994, does

not give any effect to the execution of the agreement of sale. The

contention that the agreement of sale does not reflect the intention to

sell the property, but the same is only security document for the

benefit of the General Power of Attorney holder Lingamurthy, is

vague and is not binding upon the plaintiff. Relying upon the

relevant clause Nos.1 and 2 in the agreement of sale, dated

13.04.1994, learned Senior Counsel submits that the trial Court has

rightly held that the date i.e., 06.07.1994 is for the purpose of

execution of sale deed and the balance consideration of Rs.5,000/-

was agreed to be paid at the time of registration. Thus, the time is

not essence of contract and that there is no clause that the amount

paid will be forfeited and the agreement of sale will stand cancelled

GSD, J as_1903_2003

and as such the defendants in the specific performance suit have

wrongly pleaded that non-payment of the balance sale consideration

on or before 06.07.1994 would result in cancellation of the agreement

of sale and forfeiture of the amount already paid. He further

submits that the trial Court after considering the entire evidence on

record has correctly concluded that the suit is liable to be decreed

and accordingly passed the decree for specific performance. He also

submits that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in

Zarina Siddiqui v. A.Ramalingam @ R.Amarnathan3 , since the

defendants have tried to mislead the Court by wrongly pleading

that the balance amount has to be paid on or before 06.07.1994,

which is contrary to clause (2) of the agreement of sale, the trial

Court has rightly decreed the suit for specific performance. He also

submits that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in

Aloka Bose v. Parmatma Devi and others4 the contention that the

purchaser has not signed the agreement of sale and only vendors

have signed the agreement of sale is not a valid contention. A

contract of sale will have to be primarily signed by the vendors as

the obligation to execute a registered sale deed is on the vendors and

not on the vendee. Having received Rs.1,45,000/- out of total

consideration amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and admitted the same, it is

not open to contend that the suit is not maintainable for want of

(2015) 1 SCC 705

(2009) 2 SCC 582

GSD, J as_1903_2003

signature of the purchaser on the agreement of sale and, therefore,

he submits that there are no merits in the appeal and prayed to

dismiss the same.

Learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/1st

defendant adopted the arguments advanced by the learned Senior

Counsel appearing for the appellant/2nd defendant.

This court being a Court of First Appeal is under an obligation

to reappraise the entire oral and documentary evidence to come to

an independent conclusion, not withstanding the findings recorded

by the trial Court. This Court is conscious of the fact that before

reversing a finding of a fact, the appellate Court has to bear in mind

the reasons ascribed by the trial Court. Therefore, I would like to

reappraise the entire evidence with reference to the legal position

relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellants to decide the

appeals afresh, uninfluenced by the finding recorded by the trial

Court. Considering the material available on record and arguments

advanced by the learned Counsel for the respective parties, the

points that arise for consideration are as under:-

1) Whether Ex.A1, dated 13.04.1994 is true, valid, genuine and enforceable under law?

2) Whether Ex.A1 is supported by consideration of Rs.1,50,000/-?

GSD, J as_1903_2003

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of specific performance of agreement of sale in respect of 600 square yards pertaining to Sy.No.129/1 of Kothapet Village, Uppal Mandal as mentioned in the plaint schedule?

The main contention of the appellant is that Ex.A1-agreement

of sale, dated 13.04.1994, was merely a formal document for the

purpose of security to the business dealings between the defendants

and Linga Murthy, the power of attorney holder of the present

plaintiff, who has filed the suit in the capacity of an agent to the

plaintiff. It is also the further submission of the present appellant

that under Ex.A1, out of total sale consideration of Rs.1,50,000/-

only a balance of Rs.5,000/- remained to be paid by 06.07.1994 i.e.,

within three months from the date of execution of the agreement of

sale. The plaintiff was said to have been put in possession of the

property under Ex.A1, so also the link documents were also handed

over to the plaintiff. Under clause (12) of Ex.A1, the defendants

executed General Power of Attorney on the very same day in favour

of one K.Anand, a nominee of the plaintiff's relative exclusively to

carry out the terms of the agreement of sale. However, the plaintiff

does not know the contents of the said G.P.A. executed in favour of

the said Anand on the same day. Even the plaintiff does not know

who signed the plaint. It is also the contention of the defendants

that Ex.A1 was neither sufficiently stamped nor the same was

GSD, J as_1903_2003

registered, hence it was merely a formal document for the purpose

of security to the business dealings between the defendants and

Linga Murthy, who is none other than the brother of the plaintiff. It

is also a specific contention of the defendants that the legal notice

was issued by the plaintiff only on 03.01.1995, much after the said

power of attorney which was executed in favour of Anand was

cancelled on 10.08.1994 and after the transfer of the constructed

house in favour of the wife of said Linga Murthy by the husband of

the 2nd defendant on 13.09.1994, which clearly establishes the fact

that Ex.A1 was only executed towards security to the business

dealings between the husband of the appellant and the G.P.A.

holder of the plaintiff. It is also the case of the appellant that when

the plaintiff sought for the relief of specific performance and when

the same is denied by the defendants contending that the said Ex.A1

was executed only for the limited purpose, the onus of proof is

always on the plaintiff to prove the execution of Ex.A1 in any one of

the modes provided under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act,

which was not done by the plaintiff.

In order to prove execution of the document i.e., Ex.A1, the

plaintiff himself was examined as P.W.1. During his cross-

examination, the plaintiff admitted that "he knew the defendants

through his own brother Linga Murthy; he cannot say the name of

the colony where the suit property is situated as he has not visited

GSD, J as_1903_2003

the suit property recently; he cannot say to which side the road is

existing to the suit property; he cannot say whether any road is

mentioned in the suit property under Ex.A1; he cannot say who

signed as witness on Ex.A1; it may be true that Anand, in whose

favour the defendants executed a registered G.P.A. for carrying out

terms of Ex.A1, is the sister's son of Linga Murthy".

In the cross-examination on behalf of the 2nd defendant, P.W.1

stated that "after paying the amount, he obtained the receipt, but he

does not know who signed as witness on receipt and Ex.A1; he has

executed G.P.A. in favour of his brother; he cannot say who got

prepared Ex.A5 and Ex.A5 bears their signatures and again he says

that he did not remember the same." Except himself being

examined as P.W.1, the plaintiff did not chose to examine any other

witness and even he did not examine the said Linga Murthy, his

G.P.A. holder, to rebut the contentions raised by the defendants that

Ex.A1-agreement of sale was merely a security to the business

dealings between the said Linga Murthy and the defendants. Even

the plaintiff did not file any rejoinder to the contentions raised by

the defendants.

Thus, from a perusal of the aforesaid evidence adduced by the

plaintiff, it is crystal clear that the pleadings and the evidence

adduced before the trial Court is totally contrary to the agreement of

sale for the simple reason that the plaintiff himself admitted that he

GSD, J as_1903_2003

filed the suit by signing the plaint and by paying the stamp duty,

but the plaint was signed by his brother Linga Murthy as his G.P.A.

holder.

A perusal of the material available on record, the plaintiff did

not let-in any rebuttal evidence to the contention raised by the

defendants that Ex.A1 was only a security to the business

transactions between the defendants and said Linga Murthy. In her

evidence before the trial Court, the appellant/2nd defendant, who

was examined as D.W.1, has admitted that her signature in Ex.A1,

but she stated that she does not know the contents of Ex.A1 as she

cannot read English and she does not know the plaintiff; that Linga

Murthy was known to her as he was the friend of her husband; that

her husband signed Ex.A1 as the witness and on his instructions, she

signed Ex.A1 since she was told that for the money owed by her

husband to Linga Murthy as a security, she had to sign Ex.A1. She

also admits that her husband and the 1st defendant were conducting

business in Tiles and in that connection they borrowed money from

Linga Murthy, as such they have signed Exs.A1 and A2. In this

connection, it would be appropriate to refer to the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tejram v. Patirambhau5, wherein it was

observed by the Apex Court that "On the admitted finding that the

respondent was a money lender, it would be unlikely that he had

(1997) 9 SCC 634

GSD, J as_1903_2003

paid Rs.48,000/- as cash consideration for that agreement; and

would not have kept quiet without asking for the delivery of

possession and then without paying Rs.2,000/- for three years and

filing the suit on the last date. Under these circumstances, the

necessary conclusion would be that the purported endorsement was

not, in fact, receipt of the amount but dues owed to him." In the

said case, it was also observed that "the question that arises for

consideration is whether the respondent has paid Rs.48,000/- as

cash consideration towards sale transaction. It is seen that the

document purporting to be an agreement of sale was not, in fact in

truth and in reality an agreement of sale. Witness 2, the scribe of the

agreement admitted in the examination-in-chief that he has executed

several similar documents. All those documents i.e., eight out of ten

relate to specific performance; all of them are those, who took loan

from the respondents. It is admitted position that the respondent is

a money lender. Under these circumstances, the document

purporting to be an agreement for sale is in fact not an agreement of

sale; it is towards the unpaid interest of the loan taken by the

respondent. If it is a true sale transaction and the respondent being

a businessman and having purported to have paid Rs.48,000/-, one

would expect that he would seek possession or he would pay the

balance consideration and request for execution of the sale deed.

Instead, he kept quiet for full three years. Be that as it may, it would

appear that there was money transaction between the appellant and

GSD, J as_1903_2003

the respondent and the respondent, being a money lender was taken

documents, purporting to be an agreement of sale, from the loanee

in the event of loanee's failure to pay the loan amount along with

interest stipulated by him, the document would, obviously be

executed with a view to enforce the repayment of loan and interest

accrued thereon."

In the present case also, as already stated above, Ex.A1 was

executed at the instance of the brother-in-law of the plaintiff

M.Linga Murthy, as there were loan transactions between the

husband of the 2nd defendant and the 1st defendant on one hand and

the said Linga Murthy on the other hand and a G.P.A. was also got

executed and registered in favour of one Anand, the sister's son of

Linga Murthy on the same day, however, though Ex.A1 was

executed in favour of the plaintiff and the total consideration of

Rs.1,45,000/- was shown to have received by the defendants on the

same day leaving the balance of Rs.5,000/- only and the possession

of the scheduled property was shown to have taken on the same

day, the plaintiff or the G.P.A. holder of the plaintiff have not taken

any steps to get the document registered on the same day simply

because of the reason that they were aware of the fact that Ex.A1

was executed only for the purpose of security to the loan transaction

and not for any other purpose and for this reason only the plaintiff

remained silent till the legal notice-Ex.A3 was issued. If at all the

GSD, J as_1903_2003

delivery of possession was handed over to the plaintiff, he ought not

to have sought for the relief of delivery of possession, which proves

the fact that the agreement of sale was not executed in the presence

of the plaintiff.

In Parakanunan Veetill Joseph's Son Mathew v.

Nedumbarakuruvila's Son and others (1 supra) the Apex Court held

as under:-

"14. Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 preserves judicial discretion to Courts as to decreeing specific performance. The Court should meticulously consider all facts and circumstances of the case. The Court is not bound to grant specific performance merely because it is lawful to do so. The motive behind the litigation should also enter into the judicial verdict. The Court should take care to see that it is not used as an instrument of oppression to have an unfair advantage to the plaintiff. The High Court has failed to consider the motive with which Varghese instituted the suit. It was instituted because Kuruvila could not get the estate and Mathew was not prepared to part with it. The sheet anchor of the suit by Varghese is the agreement for sale Ex.A1. Since Chettiar had waived his rights thereunder, Varghese as an assignee could not get a better right to enforce that agreement. He is, therefore, not entitled to a decree for specific performance."

In S.Rangaraju Naidu v. S.Thiruvakkarasu (2 supra) the Apex

Court held as under:-

"2. Though the learned counsel for the appellant sought to contend that the agreement of sale was only collateral to the promissory note and that there was no consensus ad idem to sell the land under the agreement but only as a collateral security, the High Court has gone

GSD, J as_1903_2003

into the question and gave findings that it was not given as collateral security, but an agreement to sale, with which we are broadly in agreement. But the question is whether the decree for specific performance is to be confirmed. It is true as rightly pointed out by Shri K.R. Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondent, that since the High Court and the courts below have exercised discretion, it may not normally be interfered with under Art, 136 of the Constitution, but the fact remains that the respondents are money-lenders and that they sought to recover the amounts due to them. Since the appellant was not b a position to pay the amount due on the promissory note, he entered into the agreement to sale the property and the agreement was sought to be enforced. Though the appellant had agreed to sell the property to respondents, the pre-dominant object thereby would be for recovery of the dues with interest. He who demands equity must do equity. Court has discretion. Court is not bound to grant specific performance. It depends on facts and circumstances in each case."

Granting of specific performance is an equitable relief, though

the same is now governed by the statutory provisions of the Specific

Relief Act, 1963 (for short "the Act"). These equitable reliefs are

incorporated in Section 20 of the Act. While granting the relief of

specific performance, the statutory guidelines shall be in the

forefront of the mind of the Court. In the present case, the trial

Court had the added advantage of recording the evidence and

seeing the demeanour of the witnesses ought to have also kept in

mind the statutory guidelines as stipulated in Section 20 of the Act.

Discretion of the Court regarding grant of specific relief is not to be

exercised in arbitrary or unreasonable manner. On the facts as

emerged from the record, the plaintiff has tried to take unfair

GSD, J as_1903_2003

advantage of the defendants and had approached the Court with

unclean hands and had behaved unfairly throughout. It is also clear

that the plaintiff has made futile attempts to legalise the illegal acts

of his brother M. Linga Murthy, who is also the power attorney

holder of the plaintiff, in respect of Ex.A1 alleging that the

defendants have agreed to sell the scheduled property, which

creates great suspicion in respect of genuineness of Ex.A1. The

power of attorney holder M.Linga Murthy, who has entered into

several transactions with the defendants and the husband of the 2nd

defendant, has not entered his appearance and he has not adduced

any evidence before the trial Court regarding the sale transaction

and payment of consideration. Since the plaintiff failed to examine

his Power of Attorney Holder, and has not proved the payment of

sale consideration or the execution of agreement of sale, he is not

entitled to any discretionary relief i.e., the decree for specific

performance.

In the light of the observations made above, the judgments

relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the 1st

respondent/plaintiff, are not applicable to the facts of the present

case.

In view of the discrepancies pointed out in the aforesaid

paragraphs, the trial Court only by drawing an inference,

erroneously concluded that Ex.A1 was executed for valid

GSD, J as_1903_2003

consideration and as such the said finding of the trial Court is liable

to be set aside.

In the result, Appeal Suit is allowed, and the judgment and

decree, dated 30.06.2003, passed in O.S.No.122 of 1995 on the file of

the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, is hereby set

aside. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

_____________________ JUSTICE G. SRIDEVI

05.10.2021 Gkv/Gsn