G. RAMAKRISHNAN Vs. L. MURUGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Second Appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree, dated 30.01.2008 passed in A.S. No. 50 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Villupuram, reversing the Judgment and Decree, dated 30.03.2006 passed in O.S. No. 112 of 2003 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kallkurichi. It is seen that the suit was filed by the respondent herein against the appellant, seeking specific performance of the contract, delivery of possession and other consequential relief. After the trial, the suit was decreed, directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with costs, in lieu of specific performance and further, held that the plaintiff is entitled to interest for the said amount, Rs. 50,000/- at the rate of 6% per annum from 10.01.2002 till the date of realisation. Aggrieved by which, appeal was preferred by the plaintiff in A.S. No. 50 of 2006. By Judgment, dated 30.01.2008, the appellate Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court, directing the defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, who is the respondent herein with other consequential relief and costs. Aggrieved by which, the defendant in the suit has preferred this second appeal.

(2.) This second appeal has been admitted on the following Substantial Questions of Law:

(3.) The first Substantial Question of Law raised by the appellant is that in a suit seeking specific performance even if the claim is lawful to do so, the Court can exercise its vested discretionary powers under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, whereby refuse to grant such relief on sound and settled principles, more particularly when it would be grossly inequitable to enforce specific performance as it would ultimately result in victimization of the alleged vendor.