SIMON Vs. THITHEERUMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff who filed the suit for specific performance of Ext. A2 agreement is the appellant. The Sub Judge did not grant specific performance but directed the defendants to return the advance amount with 6% interest from the date of suit. The Sub Judge also found that the defendants have unnecessarily denied the execution of Ext. A2 and pleaded false discharge of the advance received by them. .

(2.) Contention of the counsel for the plaintiff (appellant) is that the Sub Judge did not exercise judicial discretion bestowed upon him under the Specific Relief Act and arbitrarily and fancifully directed the defendants to return the advance amount and this has caused serious prejudice and hardship to him.

(3.) Ext. A1 agreement is admitted by the defendants. As per Ext. A1 defendants agreed to sell the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 12,250/- and received Rs. 1,000/- as advance. The agreement was executed on 11-3-1977 As per Ext. A1 agreement the sale deed was to be executed by the defendants on payment of the balance sale consideration by the plaintiff on or before 11-9-1977. It is also admitted that subsequent to Ext. A1 plaintiff paid, Rs. 1, 500/- on 13-4-1977 and Rs. 500/- on 4-5-1977 towards the balance sale consideration. Those payments are acknowledged by the second defendant in Ext. A1. Plaintiff asserted that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement by paying the balance sale consideration but the defendants dodged performance of their part of the agreement.