Judgment R. N. Sahay, J. 1. This appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 14th June, 1984, passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, bhagalpur, in Title Appeal No.67 of 1981, who modified the decree dated 19th September, 1981, passed by Sub-ordinate Judge, Bhagalpur in Title Suit No.182 of 1979. 2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent for specific performance of contract in respect of 15 decimals of land appertaining of Khata No.123, khasra No.54, measuring 147 Ft. from east to west and 45 Ft. from north to south including pucca well situated in village Bahadurpur under Sabour Anchal in the district of Bhagalpur. 3. The appellant is the owner of land in plot No.54. Khata No.123 having a total area of 2 acres 57 decimals. There is no dispute that the appellant entered into an agreement for sale of a plot of land with the plaintiff on 27.8.1979 for a consideration of Rs.6,000/-and pursuant to that agreement Rs.400/- was paid as advance. The sale-deed was registered on 16.10.1979. The balance consideration money was paid at the time of execution and registration of the sale-deed. 4. The defendant disputed that he had agreed to sale 147 Ft. land from east to west and 45 Ft. from north to south. According to the defendant dimension of the land to be sold was not mentioned in the sale-deed According to the case of the defendant on 27.8.1979 he had entered into two separate contracts at the same time with the plaintiff and another with Sri Ram Prasad Thakur for sale of two pieces of land each measuring 6 Kathas out of, Khasra No.54 of Khata No.123 zerbianama in favour of Ram Prasad Thakur was executed and dimension of the land was shown as 236 feet from north to south and 28 feet from east to west i. e. , 6608 square feet. On the said date zerbianama was also executed in favour of the plaintiff in presence of Ram Prasad Thakur who witnessed the zerbianama executed in favour of the plaintiff. , the dimension of the land agreed to be sold to Ram Prasad Thakur was mentioned in the agreement, but the dimension of the land agreed to be sold to the plaintiff was not mentioned in the zerbianama. , the dimension of the land agreed to be sold to Ram Prasad Thakur was mentioned in the agreement, but the dimension of the land agreed to be sold to the plaintiff was not mentioned in the zerbianama. The defendant has further alleged that the zerbianama in favour of the plaintiff was scribed by Krishna Kumar ghosh and witnessed by Ram Prasad Thakur the plaintiff never approached the defendant and never offered to pay Rs.5,600/- and also never asked him to execute a sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff with respect to 15 decimals of land having a dimension of 236 feet from north to south and 28 feet from east, to west. During the trial it was found that some interpolations were made in the agreement (Ext.5 ). It was subsequently introduced in the zerbianama in a different ink. The plaintiff had made interpolations in order to get a piece of land worth Rs.30,000/- to Rs.36.000/-, for rs.6,000/- only. The Trial Court decreed the suit. 5. The findings of the Trial Court is as follows : 6. The admitted case of the parties is that the defendant Labbu Mandal had agreed to sale six kathas of land to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.6,000/- on 27.8.1979 out of 5 bighas of land belonging to the defendant situated by the side of Bhagalpur Sabour road in village Bahadurpur. The defendant had purchased 5 bighas of land on 21.8.1979 from Surjit Singh for a consideration of Rs.20,000/-. It was also admitted position that labbu Mandal executed a zerbianama in favour of the plaintiff, Shankar Prasad Singh on 27.8.1979 in respect of 6 Kathas of land on a consideration of Rs.6,000/- and received Rs.400/ in advance towards consideration money. As per the terms of zerbianama sale-deed was to be executed tby the defendant on or before 15.10.1979 on receipt of the remaining consideration money of Rs.5,600/-. The only controversy between the parties was that according to the case of the plaintiff there was clear stipulation mentioned in the zerbiananama that 6 kathas of land would measure 147 feet east to west and 45 feet south to north and this specification was clearly mentioned in the zerbianama (Ext.2) whereas according to the case of the defendant the specification of 6 kathas of land agreed to be sold to the plaintiff was 28 feet east to west and 236 feet north to south. It was alleged by the defendant that the specification of land had been inserted in the zerbianama subsequent to the agreement. In other words, there was interpolation in the agreement. But according to the plaintiff the specification of land was incorporated in the zerbianama in the pen of the deed written in presence of defendant before it was signed and executed by Labbu manal. 7. With regard to interpolation the learned subordinate Judge in para 7 has held as follows : "it is worthwhile to mention here that on perusal of the zerbianama marked ext.2 it is found that specification of land has been mentioned in the said document in different ink and at the very face of it gives an impression that it was inserted in the document not in one stretch of the Scribing the document rather inserted after the scribing of the document was completed. In this connection it may be mentioned here that pw-3 Krishna Kumar Ghosh, who scribed the document (Ext.2), has stated in his evidence that he was the scribe of the zerbianama in question and that the specification of the land was mentioned by him in the said document before it was signed by defendant Labbu Mandal. He further say that the executor of zerbianama, namely Labbu Mandal signed the document aftek it contest were recovered and explained to him. This witness has proved the zerbianama as Ext.2 and he has further proved another zerbianama executed in favour of ram Prasad Thakur as Ext. A" 8. The learned Subordinate Judge adversely commented against the defendant for not examining Ram Prasad Thakur who according to the defendant was the only witness of execution of zerbianama. The learned subordinate Judge held that defendant had not proved that the interpolation was done by the plaintiff in the zerbianama by subsequently adding the specification of the land. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that the appellant was quite conscious about the recital of the specification of the land in the document before execution. 9. With regard to pucca well situated in the land it was held that the well was not separately valued in the sale-deed executed in favour of defendant by Surjit Singh. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that the appellant was quite conscious about the recital of the specification of the land in the document before execution. 9. With regard to pucca well situated in the land it was held that the well was not separately valued in the sale-deed executed in favour of defendant by Surjit Singh. One witness on behalf of the plaintiff has deposed that the defendant himself measured the land measuring 45 feet north to south and 147 feet from east to west for selling six kathas of land. The evidence of other witnesses which lends support the claim of the plaintiff. The learned Trial court, in his well considered judgment, came to the definite conclusion that there was no interpolation in the agreement and the alleged interpolation in the agreement regarding specification of land was incorporated later on. 10. The matter went up in appeal. The learned Additional District Judge, Bhagalpur affirmed the decree with modification. He found that the defendant had agreed to sale 6 kathas of land to the plaintiff, as claimed by the plaintiff, the learned Additional District judge has considered the question whether the defendant had agreed to sale the well situated in the land. The learned Appellate Court held as follows : "now the another question which crops up for consideration in the circumstance of the case is whether the defendant had agreed to sale also the well which finds incorporated in the deed of agreement dated 28,8.1979. In this connection at the very out set it is worthwhile to mention here that no a word has been stated by the plaintiff in his pleadings that the defendant had also agreed to sell the well in question. He has, however, mentioned the well only in Schedule A of the plaint, in which" he has given the description of land measuring six kathas in area which the defendant had agreed to sell to him. None of the PWs examined in this case has also uttered a word that there was any talk in between the plaintiff and the defendant for the sale of the well in question rather they are quite consistent that the defendant had agreed to sale six kathas of land to the plaintiff at Rs.6,000/- Rs.1,000/- per koathas. None of the PWs examined in this case has also uttered a word that there was any talk in between the plaintiff and the defendant for the sale of the well in question rather they are quite consistent that the defendant had agreed to sale six kathas of land to the plaintiff at Rs.6,000/- Rs.1,000/- per koathas. From the evidence of the plaintiff, PW-10 Shankar Prasad Singh, it is clear that the said well is a pucca (cemented) and there is also a small cemented tank about 4 to 5 ft. in length and width by the side of the well. In paragraph 2 of his evidence he has admitted in most unequivocal and clear words in his examination-in-chief itself that the land which the defendant had agreed to sale to him was measured from a distance of about 11/2 feet. east of the said. well. Almost similar statement has been made by PW-3 Singeshwar Paswan in his examination-in-chief itself where he has also claimed that the land which was proposed to be sold to the plaintiff was measured from about 1 cubit east of the said well. If at all the defendant would have agreed to sale the well to the plaintiff in all probability measurement would have been made not from 1 cubit or 11/2 ft. east of the well rather including the well itself. This clearly shows that the well in question was not proposed to be sold to the plaintiff by the defendant as insisted upon by the defendant. That being the position the plaintiff is clearly not entitled to include the well in the land which the defendant had proposed to sell to him which was 6 kathas in area, the dimension of which was 45 feet in width from north to south and 147 ft. in length from east to west.13. The learned Counsel for the appellant has urged that since the relief for specific performance is an equitable relief the plaintiff was not entitled for specific performance of the contract. on the facts of this case when he appears to have incorporated the dimension of six kathas of land according to his own choice in, the deed of agreement dated 27.8.1979 (Ext.2) after it was executed by the defendant and also incorporated the well although the defendant had never agreed to sell the said well to him. on the facts of this case when he appears to have incorporated the dimension of six kathas of land according to his own choice in, the deed of agreement dated 27.8.1979 (Ext.2) after it was executed by the defendant and also incorporated the well although the defendant had never agreed to sell the said well to him. It has already been pointed above that from the facts and circumstances of the case-and also the evidence which is on the record it is clear that the defendant had executed the deed of agreement of sale dated 27.8.1979 after the dimension of six kathas of land was incorporated therein when according to his own admission he insisted that such dimension must also be incorporated in the said deed of agreement of sale which explains the use of two different inks, one of which the deed of agreement was scribed and the other in which the dimension of the land proposed to be sold to the plaintiff was written. No doubt the relief for specific performance is an equitable relief and Sec.22 of the specific Relief Act itself says 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. Of course, this discretion of the Court is not arbitrary but sound and reasonable, guided by the judicial principles and capable of correction by a Court of Appeal. In special cases when there are some good and reasonable grounds for not exercising this discretion in favour of the plaintiff, the Court will not hesitate to exercise that discretion against the plaintiff. In the instant case, I find that it is utmost an admitted case of the parties that the defendant had agreed to sell six kathas of land to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.6,000/-, it is also admitted case of the parties that the defendant had executed the deed of agreement of sell on 27.8.1979 in favour of the plaintiff and had also received a sum of rs.400/- being the part of the consideration money. Both in his pleadings as well as in course of his evidence the defendant has expressed his readiness and willingness to perform the part of his contract i. e. , to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of six kathas of land. Both in his pleadings as well as in course of his evidence the defendant has expressed his readiness and willingness to perform the part of his contract i. e. , to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of six kathas of land. Of course as per dimension given by him, but from the evidence which is on the record of the case it is clear that defendant had agreed to sell six kathas of land to the plaintiff which was to be 45 ft. in width from north to south and 147 ft. in length from east to west but that will not include the well. That being the position I see no reason why the plaintiff should not get a decree for the specific performance of contract of sale of six kathas of land with the above dimension but excluding the well as prayed for by him. " 11. The learned Additional District Judge held that there was no valid reason to deny the plaintiff specific relief in respect of contract in question in the facts and circumstances of the case. 12. The following substantial question of law arise from consideration: "whether having found that the well and the Chabutra were not the subject-matter of the agreement, the Court can decree a suit for specific performance with respect to the area excluding the well and the chabutra. " 13. Mr. Sukumar Sinha, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent was liable to be dismissed on the simple ground that there was non-compliance of Sec.16 (1) (c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 , which provides that in a suit for specific performance of contract the plaintiff must expressly aver in the plaint his readiness and willingness perform his part of the contract. As held by the Privy Council in 1928 P. C.208 repudiation of the contract by the defendant does not relieve the plaintiff of this obligation. This contention of the Counsel for the appellant was refuted by Sri parmeshwar Prasad, learned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent who submitted that it is not open to the appellant to raise this question for the first time in Second Appeal. He submitted that this point was not specifically raised in any of the Courts below. This contention of the Counsel for the appellant was refuted by Sri parmeshwar Prasad, learned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent who submitted that it is not open to the appellant to raise this question for the first time in Second Appeal. He submitted that this point was not specifically raised in any of the Courts below. Hence this plea cannot be raised at the stage of Second Appeal gangajal Tiwary V/s. Brijnandan Tiwary 14. On examination of the plaint, 1 find that the plaintiff has averred that he was always willing and ready to perform his part of contract. Thus, the contention of Mr. Sukumar sinha is not correct. 15. The case of the defendant in the written statement was that in the zerbianama in favour of Ram Prasad Thakur no doubt dimension of the land which was agreed to be sold was mentioned but no dimension was given in the plaintiffs agreement because the plaintiff knew that the contract was with respect to the same area of land with same dimension at same price as per contract entered into by the defendant on the same day with Ram Prasad thakur. The Appellate Court, however, on consideration of the evidence of the plaintiffs witnesses, held that the defendant himself had insisted that the dimension of the land has to be mentioned in the agreement. Measurement was done in presence of the plaintiff and the correction in the agreement mentioning area was done with the knowledge of the defendant since the land was measured before the agreement, it is true that there is no such averment in the plaint to this effect. The plaintiff would not be entitled to lead evidence to show that the defendant was aware of the entire contents of the sale deed and actually no interpolation was done to his knowledge. 16. Mr. Sukumar Sinha, learned Counsel has submitted that the trial Court has given a definite finding that there has been interpolation in the agreement which submission was refuted by Mr. Parmeshwar Prasad, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent. 17. In para 7 of the judgment, learned subordinate Judge has no doubt observed that specification of the land mentioned in the document is in different ink and at the very face of it. Parmeshwar Prasad, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent. 17. In para 7 of the judgment, learned subordinate Judge has no doubt observed that specification of the land mentioned in the document is in different ink and at the very face of it. it gave an impression that it was inserted in the document not in one stretch of the scribing rather it was inserted after the scribing of the documents. There is no clear cut finding that it was a case of interpolation. On the other hand, learned Trial Judge preferred to the evidence of scriber Krishna Kumar, Ghosh (PW-8), who stated that he was the scriber of zerbianama in question and that the specification of land was mentioned by him in the said document before it was signed by defendant labbu Mandal. He had eve read the document before signing it. The appellant has stated that zerbianama was signed in presence of Ram prasad Thakur. Ram Prasad Thakur was not examined in Court giving there adverse inference against the defendant for not examining ram Prasad Thakur. One witness on behalf of the plaintiff had deposed that the defendant himself measured the land measuring 45 ft. north to south and 147 ft. east to west, which was agreed to be sold which comes to 6 kathas of land. 18. Learned Appellate Court has considered the findings of the Trial Court and held that the well mentioned in the agreement was not intended to be sold. Learned Appellate court while dealing with this question in para 12 of the judgment observed that the plaintiff in his pleadings had not stated a word that the defendant had also agreed to sell the well in question. He mentioned the well in Schedule a of the plaint in which he has given the description of the land being 6 kathas in area which the defendant was agreed to sell to him. No witness of the plaintiff said that there was any talk with the plaintiff for sale of the well in question rather all the witnesses are quite consistent that the defendant had agreed to sell 6 kathas of land to the plaintiff for Rs.6,000/-i. e. , Rs.1,000/- per katha. The evidence of the plaintiff also indicated that the measurement was done from a distance of about ll/2 feet east of the said well. The evidence of the plaintiff also indicated that the measurement was done from a distance of about ll/2 feet east of the said well. Learned Appellate Court held that if at all the defendant agreed to sell the well to the plaintiff, in all probability measurement would have been done not from 1 cubit or 11/2 east of the well rather including the well itself. It was not done by including the well. Thus, the well was not agreed to be sold. The learned Appellate Court therefore decreed the suit of the plaintiff with 45 ft. in width from north to south and 147 ft. length from east to west but excluding the well. 19. Mr. Sukumar Sinha, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the relief of specific performance was equitable relief and since many years have elpased of the execution of the agreement, the plaintiff should be compensated adequately in lieu of the land. The Court of equity is not bound to grant decree for specific performance of contract even though the agreement is proved and the plaintiff has performed and/or is ready and willing to perform his part, the Court has to take into consideration the transaction itself and the circumstances surrounding it. Mr. Sukumar Sinha raised the fundamental question that the decree passed by the Appellate court is illegal inasmuch as the Court has no jurisdiction to alter the terms of the agreement as such well being integral part of the agreement the Court could not alter the agreement and grant a decree by excluding the well. 20. The argument is no doubt very attractive but in view of the finding of the Appellate Court that in the plaint there is no mention of well wherein the witnesses have stated that there was agreement to sell the well as well, in my opinion, the Appellate Court committed no illegality in modifying the decree of excluding the well. It is to be noticed that the suit was for specific performance of contract. It is no doubt that the suit was filed in 1979 i. e. , 20 years have elapsed and the defendant is in possession of the land and well, the plaintiff did not agreement to purchase the same area as sold to Ram Prasad Thakur. 21. It is to be noticed that the suit was for specific performance of contract. It is no doubt that the suit was filed in 1979 i. e. , 20 years have elapsed and the defendant is in possession of the land and well, the plaintiff did not agreement to purchase the same area as sold to Ram Prasad Thakur. 21. The question is whether the appellant should be given adequate compensation instead of decree for specific performance of contract 22. In Smt. Shakuntala Devi and Another V/s. Harish Chandra and Another, it has been held by a Division Bench of Allahabad high Court that where the Court finds that a contract has been entered into and, there has been a breach of that contract and that it is not possible or desirable to order specific performance of that contract but it is just and proper to award compensation, the Court can make an order allowing compensation to the aggrieved party even without a specific prayer in the plaint.2. AIR (39) All 602, 23. In Dayaram Chainrai V/s. Karmumat kobumal and Another, Haweliwala, ACJ held as follows : "now under Sec.22, Specific Relief act discretion in the grant of specific performance of the contract depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and that discretion having been exercised by the First Appellate Court on the consideration of the evidence recorded in the case, this Court should not interfere unless it is shown that the discretion was perverse and against judicial principles as Mulla points out in his Law of Contract at p.796 (Edn.6): "the modern rule has been thus declared; it is clear that the Court may exercise a discretion in granting or withholding a decree for specific performance and in the exercise of that discretion the circumstances of the case and the conduct of the parties and their respective interest under the contract are to be remembered. " 24. In Flora Sason V/s. Areshir H. Mama, macleod C. J. has observed as follows : "i think the true view is that if a party sues for specific performance and in the alternative for damages, the alternative claim is only goods in the event of the court holding that it is not a case for decreeing specific performance. As pointed out by Mr. As pointed out by Mr. Harnam Singh in his Law of Specific Relief in India, the words "may also ask for compensation" in Sec.19 have to be taken with paras 2 and 3 of the Section. The Court has a discretion to decree specific performance, and if the plaintiff will not take that, to refuse him damages, and the Court cannot be deprived of its dis-cretion by the plaintiff electing either before or after the hearing commences, not to ask for specific performance. " 25. In the instant case, the plaintiff has not made any alternative prayer for compensation, hence question of grant of compensation in lieu of decree for specific performance does not arise in view/of the decision of allahabad High Court quoted above. The Appellate court held that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree. The Appellate Court refused to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of the defendant. This Court in Second appeal cannot interfere with the discretion as held by the judicial pronouncements. In the result, the appeal is dismissed without cost. The decree of Court below is affirmed. Appeal dismissed.