ANAPPATH PARAKKATTU VASUDEVAKURUP Vs. C. HARIDASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the court can dictate the terms and conditions of contract in a suit for specific performance by directing payment of enhanced sale consideration and what is the jurisdiction vested with the court under Sec. 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act')are the questions came up for consideration, besides the appreciation of evidence in the disputed issues involved in the suit.

(2.) A decree for specific performance of contract was granted by the trial court by re- fixing the sale consideration at Rs.11,000.00 per cent as against Rs.8,750.00 agreed into by the parties in the contract for sale, by relying on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Pratap Lakshman Muchandi and Ors. v. Shamlal Uddavadas Wadhwa and Ors.(AIR 2008 SC 1378), that too, without any consensus either from the appellant or the respondent.

(3.) The court below did not understand the legal position laid down by the Apex Court in Pratap Lakshman Muchandi's case (supra) in its correct perspective. There cannot be any change in the terms and conditions arising out of a contract for sale or obligation annexed to it at the instance of the court. The court cannot dictate or deviate from any term or condition enumerated in the contract for sale between the parties or agreed into by the parties and as such, it is not within the jurisdiction of the court to re-fix the sale consideration as against what is agreed into by the parties though it is within the jurisdiction of the court under Sec. 20 of the Act to work out equity by ordering any additional sum to the plaintiff, when specific performance is denied on account of the discretion to be exercised under that provision. That does not mean that the court can vary or alter or substitute the terms and conditions of the contract while enforcing it or while granting specific performance. No such authority is vested with the court to deviate from the terms and conditions either in substitution or in addition or to give enhanced sale consideration as against what is agreed into by the parties. At the same time, by exercising the jurisdiction under Sec. 20 of the Act, the court is well equipped to order any sum to be paid to the plaintiff instead of granting specific performance so as to strike a balance based on equity, good conscience and fairness, the basic principles which govern the special provision, I would say the extraordinary provision, Sec. 20 of the Act, an exception to the general principle to grant decree, when it is found lawful to do so. The discretion that can be exercised under Sec. 20 of the Act though resting on the principles of equity, good conscience and fairness, has to be exercised not to grant specific performance even if it is lawful to do so, more specifically the discretion has to exercised in a negative way not to grant the relief of specific performance. Primarily, the discretion has to be exercised so as to compensate the plaintiff by striking a balance by ordering payment instead of granting a decree of specific performance. Sec. 20 of the Act reads as follows: