( 1 ) THIS second appeal was heard on merits on December 15, 1971. The contention raised by Mr. Jagirdar learned Counsel for the appellant, was thgt there was no basis for the conclusion reached by the first appellate court on the 3rd point framed by it for decision. The 3rd point raised by the first appellate Court in the course of its judgment reads as follows whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance or in the alternative for refund of the money?"on this point the first appellate Court held that the plaintiff was entitled for the refund of the amount and not for specific performance. It was urged by Mr. Jagirdar while arguing the plaintiff's case, before it was sent back to the first appllate Court for a finding on the specific issue framed that there was no specific plea nor an issue raised in respect of the 3rd point raised by the first appellate Court. It was therefore thought fit that the following additional issue should be raised on this point and the same be sent for trial for recording the finding thereon. Whether the plaintiff took unfair advantage of the indigent circumstances of the defendant at the time of the suit transaction and, if so whether the defendant is entitled to the refusal of the relief of specific performance by the plaintiff. "the first appellate Court recorded evidence for the determination of the additional issue. The learned Civil Judge after assessing and appreciating the evidence produced by the plaintiff and the defendant, has given a finding that the plaintiff took unfair advantage of the indigent circumstances of the defendant at the time of the suit transactions and therefore the refusal of the relief of specific performance was the only course to be adopted in favour of the defendant. Thus the first appellate Court has answered the issue in the affirmative. ( 2 ) MR. Jagirdar learned Counsel for the plaintiff placing strong reliance on the provisoins of S. 20 (l) (a) of the S. R Act, 1965, vehemently contended that the first appellate Court has seriously erred in answering the issue in the affirmative in the absence of any evidence which was required to satisfy the requirements of the provisions of S. 20 (l) (a) and Expln. 1 of the Specific Relief Act. Mr. 1 of the Specific Relief Act. Mr. Jagirdar further relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Satyanarayana v. Yelloji Rao AIR. 1965 SC. 1405 and submitted that the plaintiff was not at all responsible for the indigent cicrumstances in which the defendant was placed at the time of the suit transaction and therefore the first appellate Court has grossly erred in not granting the relief of specific performance. ( 3 ) MR. Santhosh Hegde, learned Counsel on behalf of the defendant contended that the requirement of S. 20 of the Specific Relief Act does not require that the indigent circumstances was brought about by the plaintiff himself. According to Mr. Santhosh Hegde, what is required is whether the plaintiff took unfair advantage of such circumstance and induced the defendant by his representation or conduct to enter into the contract. ( 4 ) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions put forth on behalf of the parties, it is necessary torafer to the provisions of S. 20 of the Specific relief Act and examine the materials on record in this case in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court cited by Mr. Jagirdar for the plaintiff. Section 20 of the Act reads as follows : 20 (1) 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; but the discretion of the Court is not arbitrary but sound and reasonable, guided by judicial principles and capable of correction by a Court of Appeal. (2) The following are cases in which the Court may properly exercise discretion not to decree specific performance- (a) Where the terms of the contract or the conduct of the parties at the time of entering into the contract or the other circumstances under which the contract was entered into are such that the contract, though not voidable, gives the plaintiff an unfair advantage over the defendant; or (b. . . . . . . . . . . . . (c. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (c. . . . . . . . . . . . . Explanation -: Mere inadequacy of consideration, or the merefact that the contract is onerous to the defendant or improvident in its nature, shall not be deemed to constitute an unfair advantage within the meaning of clause (a) or hardship within the meaning of clause (b) it is clear from the above that the grant of decree for specific relief is discretionary and that the Court is not bound to grant such relief, even though it is lawful to do so. It is further clear that the discretion of the court should not be arbitrary but it should be sound and reasonable, guided by judicial principles and capable of correction by a court of Appeal. It is also clear that where the terms of the contract or the conduct of the parties at the time of entering into the contract or the other Circumstanees under which the contract was entered into are such that the contract give the plaintiff an unfair advantage over the defendant, a decree for specific performance should not be granted. The Explanation further makes it clear that mere inadequacy of consideration or the mere fact that the contract is onerous to the defendant or improvident in its nature, shall not be deemed to constitute an unfair advantage within the meaning of clause (a) It is to be seen whether the contrarct in, the instant case is unconscionable and that the actual performance of it would be inequitable to the defendant. The first appellate Court has set out the evidence produced by the defendant to prove that he was in an indigent circumstance and that he was compelled to ask for a loan of Rs. 4,000' from the plaintiff's uncle one Shanmukhappa. The learned Civil Judge has found that the financial condition of the defendant was very bad and he was indebted to the extent of Rs. 1,600 for having purchased 2 khilari bullocks from some Madras people and he had to pay Rs. 945 to one Basappa munalli and that he was hard-pressed for money. It is also found that no other person in the village was in an affluent condition to advance that amount except Shanmukappa, the uncle of the plaintiff. 1,600 for having purchased 2 khilari bullocks from some Madras people and he had to pay Rs. 945 to one Basappa munalli and that he was hard-pressed for money. It is also found that no other person in the village was in an affluent condition to advance that amount except Shanmukappa, the uncle of the plaintiff. It was in these circumstances the defendant approached Shanmukappa for a loan. He agreed to advance the loan only if the defendant agreed to sell the suit land which admittedly is worth more than Rs. 10,000. The first witness for the plaintiff haa stated that the defendant subsequently sold a portion of suit survey number for a sum of Rs. 10,000 in favour of one Ningappa and that 4 annas share would come to only 7 acres. Having regard to the evidence on record the learned Civil Judge has observed in paragraph 5 of his judgment as follows : therefore it is possible that father and son took unfair advantage of the indigent circumstances of Amrutrao and made him part away with the land after refusing to reconvey the land. . . . . Further the learned Civil Judge at the end of paragraph 5 has observed as follows : in whatever angle the case is viewed it directly points out to the indigent circumstances under which the defendant had been placed and the same were taken advantage by plaintiff for lending the sum of Rs. 4,000 and making him to agree to sell the land. In view of these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff indeed took unfair advantage of the indigent circumstances of the defendant at the time of suit transactions and therefore the refusal of tne relief of specific performance appears to me the only course to be adopted in favour of the defendant and more so. when people are scrambling for lands, it would be highly unreasonable if the defendant is bereft of the only land that supports him in his old age. . . . . It is not possible to say that the above finding of the leaned Civil Judge is unsound or unreasonable. The above finding in my opinion is based upon proved facts in the case. . . . . It is not possible to say that the above finding of the leaned Civil Judge is unsound or unreasonable. The above finding in my opinion is based upon proved facts in the case. ( 5 ) IN para 11 of the decision of the Supreme Court in Satyanarayana v. Yelloji Rao (l), the Supreme Court has observed as follows : it is not possible or desirable to lay down the circumstances under which a Court can exercise its discretion against the plaintiff. But they must be such that the representation by or conduct or neglect of the plaintiff is directly responsible in inducing the defendant to change his position to his prejudice or such as to bring about a situation when it would be inequitable to give him such a relief. This decision, in my opinion, does not assist the case of the plaintiff. On the other hand, the decision supports the stand taken by the defendant. At the time of entering into the contract, the circumstances which prevailed have to be considered to find out whether any representation was made by the plaintiff and his conduct tended to give him an unfair advantage over the defendant. In the instant case, as already stated, the defendant was in need of money. There was nobody else in the village to advance him money, and it was the plaintiff's father alone who was in affluent circumstances to advance the loan required by the defendant. When the defendant approached the father of the plaintiff for a loan, he agreed to advance the loan only if the defendant would sell his land. Thus the conduct of the plaintiff was directly responsible to induce the defendant to change his position, and the defendant sought for the loan and entered into an agreement to sell his lands for Rs. 4,000 and received the amount from the plaintiff. In these circumstances, the decision relied upon by Mr. Jagirdar for the plaintiff is more in favour of the defendant than in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's representation and conduct were directly responsible for inducing the defendant to change his position to his prejudice and as such the plaintiff brought about a situation which was inequitable to give such a relief to him. Therefore, I agree with the finding of the first appellate Court on the additional issue. The plaintiff's representation and conduct were directly responsible for inducing the defendant to change his position to his prejudice and as such the plaintiff brought about a situation which was inequitable to give such a relief to him. Therefore, I agree with the finding of the first appellate Court on the additional issue. The finding satisfies the requirments of S. 20 (l) and (2) of the Specific Relief act, 1963, which disentitles the plaintiff to get a decree for specific performance. Therefore, the finding of the first appellate Court is affirmed and the relief of specific performance is not granted. ( 6 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court do not call for interference. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed with costs. --- *** --- .