Parakunnan Veetill Joseph'S Son Mathew vs Nedumbara Kuruvila'S Son And Ors. on 14 September, 1987
4. The learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the finding recorded by the learned First Appellate Court is based on misreading of evidence as the defendant has neither admitted his signatures on the agreement Exhibit P-3 nor admitted the receipt of Rs. 51,000/- as earnest money. Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned First Appellate Court suffers from misreading of evidence and consequently not sustainable. It is argued that the decree for specific performance is a discretionary relief and both the Courts below have granted such discretionary relief without considering the comparative hardship. It is argued that the defendant and his daughter are residing in the back side of the shop and that he was 70 years of age at the time of execution of agreement. Therefore, if the relief of specific performance is to be granted, it will non suit the defendant and her daughter from the premises in dispute. Since such fact is not taken into consideration, a decree for specific performance cannot be passed. Reference is made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Parakunnan Veeti Joseph's v. Nedumbara Kuruvila's son ", "Veluyudhan Sathyadas v. Govindan Dakshyani 2003(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 28", "A.C Arulappan v. Ahal Ya Naik " and v. Muthusami (dead) by LRs. v. Angammal .