SANGANNA Vs. AMRUTH RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal was heard on merits on December 15, 1971. The contention raised by Mr. Jagirdar learned Counsel for the appellant, was thgt there was no basis for the conclusion reached by the first appellate Court on the 3rd point framed by it for decision. The 3rd point raised by the first appellate Court in the course of its judgment reads as follows Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance or in the alternative for refund of the money?

(2.) Mr. Jagirdar learned Counsel for the plaintiff placing strong reliance on the provisoins of S.20(l) (a) of the S.R Act, 1965, vehemently contended that the first appellate Court has seriously erred in answering the issue in the affirmative in the absence of any evidence which was required to satisfy the requirements of the provisions of S.20(l) (a) and Expln.1 of the Specific Relief Act. Mr. Jagirdar further relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Satyanarayana v. Yelloji Rao AIR. 1965 SC.1405 and submitted that the plaintiff was not at all responsible for the indigent cicrumstances in which the defendant was placed at the time of the suit transaction and therefore the first appellate Court has grossly erred in not granting the relief of specific performance.

(3.) Mr. Santhosh Hegde, learned Counsel on behalf of the defendant contended that the requirement of S.20 of the Specific Relief Act does not require that the indigent circumstances was brought about by the plaintiff himself. According to Mr. Santhosh Hegde, what is required is whether the plaintiff took unfair advantage of such circumstance and induced the defendant by his representation or conduct to enter into the contract.