Short Note : 1. The respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit against the appellant-defendant for specific performance of the contract dated 18-9-1969 (Ex P-l) by which the appellant defendant had agreed to sell his house, in his favour. The appellant-defendant contested the suit on the ground that the agreement was got executed by the respondent plaintiff as a security for a loan of Rs. 150 which he had obtained from him. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the respondent-plaintiff. But in appeal filed by him, the lower appellate Court allowed the same and passed a decree for specific performance of the contract. 2. Held: The point for consideration in this appeal is whether the document dated 18-9-1969 (Ex. P-l), which is an agreement for sale, exhibited the real intention of the parties as expressed therein or it was merely executed as a security for the loan that was obtained, by the appellant from the respondent. The execution of the agreement is admittedly not disputed by the appellant. It is well settled that in case of a suit for specific performance of a contract, the discretion exercised by the trial Court will not be interfered with in appeal unless it bas been exercised perversely, arbitrarily or against judicial principles. In the present case, the trial Court declined to grant a decree for specific performance Therefore, the lower appellate Court could only interfere with that decree on the basis of the principles stated above. On a perusal of the judgment of the lower appellate Court this Court finds that it has discussed the evidence on record and came to the conclusion that the document (Ex. P-l) was executed by the appellant as an agreement to sell the house and the reasons for arriving at that conclusion have been given in paras 11 to 15 of its judgment. The matter, as it appears, rests entirely on the appreciation of the oral evidence adduced by the parties and the circumstances attending thereto together with the conduct of the parties. This Court, therefore, sees no reason for holding that the document (Ex. The matter, as it appears, rests entirely on the appreciation of the oral evidence adduced by the parties and the circumstances attending thereto together with the conduct of the parties. This Court, therefore, sees no reason for holding that the document (Ex. P-l) was executed as a collateral security and not an agreement for sales Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant contended that even assuming that it was an agreement to sell, still the decree for specific performance of the contract cannot be granted in the instant case because the contract entered into gave the respondent plaintiff an unfair advantage over the defendant-appellant on the basis of the va1uation of the house which was at Rs. 3,000 while it was tried to be secured by the document for a consideration of Rs. 400. In the opinion of this Court the submission is of substance. The appellant defendant clearly stated in his evidence that the house mentioned in the agreement was valued at Rs. 3,000 and there was no cross-examination of the said witness on that point. There was, therefore, no reason for the lower appellate Court to hold the valuation to be less than Rs. 3,000 which it did in para 14 of its judgment as Rs. 1,000 or Rs, 1,200. The appellant-defendant (D.W. 1) in his evidence also stated the reasons for entering into the transaction and there was no cross-examination even on that score on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff. This Court, is therefore, of opinion that from the evidence on record it is clear that the agreement (Ex. P-1) so entered into gave the respondent plaintiff unfair advantage over the appellant-defendant and in those circumstances the trial Court declined to grant a decree for specific performance, which is a discretionary relief. The lower appellate Court was not right in interfering lightly with that discretion. It is unthinkable that a house worth Rs. 3,000 would be sold by the owner for a consideration of Rs. 400. The difference in the amount itself speaks about the correctness of the story that the appellant-defendant was in a difficult situation and having no other option but to execute that agreement to part with this house for a partly sum of Rs. 400. Appeal allowed.