Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

41. The twin inhibiting factors identified above if are to be read as a bar to the grant of a decree of specific performance would amount to penalising the plaintiffs for no fault on their part; to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 04:32:41 pm ) deny them the real fruits of a protracted litigation wherein the issues arising are being answered in their favour.”

A-1 was never intended to be acted upon. At the risk of repetition, we state that applying the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, such a stand of the appellants was certainly not prohibited under Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act.

19. Admission made in the evidence of P.W-1 would falsify her bonafides in a suit for specific performance. Simultaneously, Defendant-1 is an unlettered, rustic, aged lady and not conversant with the legal issues, and she pleads non est factum. In such event, it is for the plaintiff who was in dominant position over Defendant-1 to prove fairness and transparency under https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 04:32:41 pm ) Ex.A-1 as per Section 111 of the Evidence Act. She cannot take undue advantage of the ignorance and innocence of the defendant in view of the bar u/s. 20 of the Specific Relief Act. Section 20(1) reads that the jurisdiction to decree specific performance is discretionary, and the Court is not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so. Section 20(2) of the Specific Relief Act also empowers the Court not to exercise discretion to decree specific performance, if

29. In the case of Sughar Singh v. Hari Singh (Dead) through Legal Rep , reported in 2021 (17) SCC 705 (Para 28 and 29), “28. Now, so far as the finding recorded by the High Court and the observations made by the High court on Section 20 the Act and the observation that even if the agreement is found to be duly executed and the plaintiff is found to be ready and willing to perform his part of the Agreement, grant of decree of specific performance is not automatic and it is a discretionary relief is concerned, the same cannot be accepted and/or approved. In such a case, many a times it would be giving a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 04:32:41 pm ) premium to the dishonest conduct on the part of the defendant / executant of the agreement to sell. Even the discretion under Section 20 of the Act is required to be exercised judiciously, soundly and reasonably. The plaintiff cannot be punished by refusing the relief of specific performance despite the fact that the execution of the agreement to sell in his favour has been established and proved and that he is found to be always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Not to grant the decree of specific performance despite the execution of the agreement to sell is proved; part sale consideration is proved and the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract would encourage the dishonesty. In such a situation, the balance should tilt in favour of the plaintiff rather than in favour of the defendant executant of the agreement to sell, while exercising the discretion judiciously.