Case: Jayakantham  Vs. Abaykumar

appellate court.”(iv) These principles were followed by this Court in A.C. Arulappan v. Smt. Ahalya Naik (2001) 6 SCC 600 ), with the following observations :“…..7. The jurisdiction to decree specific relief is discretionary and the court can consider various circumstances to decide whether such relief is to be granted. Merely because it is lawful to grant specific relief, the court need not grant the order for specific relief; but this discretion shall not be exercised in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner. Certain circumstances have been mentioned in Section 20(2) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 as to under what circumstances the court shall exercise such discretion. If under the terms of the contract the plaintiff gets an unfair advantage over the defendant, the court may not exercise its discretion in favour of the plaintiff. So also, specific relief may not be granted if the defendant would be put to undue hardship which he did not foresee at the time of agreement. If it is inequitable to grant specific relief, then also the court would desist from granting a decree to the plaintiff.”……..“…..15. Granting of specific performance is an equitable relief, though the same is now governed by the statutory provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. These equitable principles are nicely incorporated in Section 20 of the Act. While granting a decree for specific performance, these salutary guidelines shall be in the forefront of the mind of the court…..”(v) A Bench of three Judges of this Court considered the position in Nirmala Anand Vs. Advent Corporation (P) Ltd. and Ors. (2002) 8 SCC 146 ), and held thus :“…..6. It is true that grant of decree of specific performance lies in the discretion of the court and it is also well settled that it is not always necessary to grant specific performance simply for the reason that it is legal to do so. It is further well settled that the court in its discretion can impose any reasonable condition including payment of an additional amount by one party to the other while granting or refusing decree of specific performance. Whether the purchaser shall be directed to pay an additional amount to the seller or converse would depend upon the facts and circumstances of a case. Ordinarily, the plaintiff is not to be denied the relief of specific performance only on account of the phenomenal increase of price during the pendency of litigation. That may be, in a given case, one of the considerations besides many others to be taken into consideration for refusing the decree of specific performance. As a general rule, it cannot be held that ordinarily the plaintiff cannot be allowed to have, for her alone, the entire benefit of phenomenal increase of the value of the property during the pendency of the litigation. While balancing the equities, one of the considerations to be kept in view is as to who is the defaulting party. It is also to be borne in mind whether a party is trying to take undue advantage over the other as also the hardship that may be caused to the defendant by directing specific performance. There may be other circumstances on which parties may not have any control. The totality of the circumstances is required to be seen.”10. In the present case, the material on the record contains several aspects which will have to weigh in the balance. There is no dispute about the fact that the father of the respondent who entered into an agreement on his behalf (and deposed in evidence) carried on moneylending business. The consistent case of the appellants in reply to the legal notice, in the written statement as well as in the course of evidence was that there was a transaction of a loan with the father of the respondent. The evidence of DW2 was to the following effect :“The defendant was having a relationship with plaintiff’s father, Babu Dhanaraj in respect of loan transaction. Already the Defendant No. 2 has taken loan from Babu Dhanapathy Raj and bought a lorry and was driving it. In this case, in order to return the loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- as per the instruction of Babu Dhanapathy Raj only on the basis of trust, the Exhibit P1 agreement to sell was executed. In the said document, I have put my signature as a witness.”During the course of the evidence, the appellants produced material (Exhibit D3) indicating that the value of the property was six lakhs thirty thousand on 20 November 2006. The agreed consideration between the parties was rupees one lakh sixty thousand of which an amount of rupees sixty thousand was paid at the time of the execution of the agreement. The sale transaction was to be completed within three years against the payment of the balance of rupees one lakh. The appellants also relied upon Exhibit D2 which indicated that the value of the property as on 1 April 1999. These aspects were adverted to in the judgment of the trial court and the first appellate court while setting out the evidence, but have evidently not been borne in mind in determining as to whether a decree for specific performance could judiciously have been passed.11. In our view the material which has been placed on record indicates that the terms of the contract, the conduct of parties at the time of entering into the agreement and circumstances under which the contract was entered into gave the plaintiff an unfair advantage over the defendants. These circumstances make it inequitable to enforce specific performance.12. For the above reasons a decree for the payment of compensation in lieu of specific performance would meet the ends of justice. As we have noted earlier the father of the respondent paid an amount of rupees sixty thousand to the appellants in June 1999 of the total agreed consideration of Rs. 1.60 lakhs. The appellants have voluntarily offered to pay an amount of rupees ten lakhs, as just compensation in lieu of specific performance.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]8. While evaluating whether specific performance ought to have been decreed in the present case, it would be necessary to bear in mind the fundamental principles of law. The court is not bound to grant the relief of specific performance merely because it is lawful to do so. Section 20(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 indicates that the jurisdiction to decree specific performance is discretionary. Yet, the discretion of the court is not arbitrary but isto beThe exercise of discretion is capable of being corrected by a court of appeal in the hierarchy of appellate courts.In the present case, the material on the record contains several aspects which will have to weigh in the balance. There is no dispute about the fact that the father of the respondent who entered into an agreement on his behalf (and deposed in evidence) carried on moneylending business. The consistent case of the appellants in reply to the legal notice, in the written statement as well as in the course of evidence was that there was a transaction of a loan with the father of the respondent.11. In our view the material which has been placed on record indicates that the terms of the contract, the conduct of parties at the time of entering into the agreement and circumstances under which the contract was entered into gave the plaintiff an unfair advantage over the defendants. These circumstances make it inequitable to enforce specific performance.12. For the above reasons a decree for the payment of compensation in lieu of specific performance would meet the ends of justice. As we have noted earlier the father of the respondent paid an amount of rupees sixty thousand to the appellants in June 1999 of the total agreed consideration of Rs. 1.60 lakhs. The appellants have voluntarily offered to pay an amount of rupees ten lakhs, as just compensation in lieu of specific performance.