(1.) This second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code has been preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 4-12-1989 passed in AS No.10 of 1989 on the file of the District Judge, Adilabad, confirming the judgment and decree dated 18-4-1989 passed in OS No.55 of 1984 on the file of the District Munsif, Adilabad. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the said suit OS No.55 of 1984.
(2.) The respondent-plaintiff filed that suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 17-1-1981 (Ex.A1) against the appellant-defendant and in the alternative for return of the advance money paid by him at the time of execution of the said agreement of sale. The trial Court decreed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale. The first appellate Court confirmed the said judgment and decree of the trial Court. Aggrieved of that, the defendant has come up with this second appeal.
(3.) The only substantial question of law raised by Sri P.S. Murthy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, is that under the provisions of Section 20(2) (b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court ought not to have granted the relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff as such a relief causes great hardship to the defendant and refusal to grant such a relief does not cause any hardship to the plaintiff.