JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. G Jalan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff for dismissal of the suit for specific performance of contract by both the courts below. 2. The facts leading to filing of Title Suit No.54/2012 by the plaintiff/appellant are as follows: Late Riajuddin Ahmed, the father of the plaintiff/appellant and the respondent/defendant No.1 was the absolute owner of the land measuring 200 sq.ft. out of 2B 1K 11L covered by Dag No. 505 Periodic Patta No.296 of Block 5, Jorhat town along with RCC commercial premises which is described in the schedule of the plaint and forms the suit land. After the death of Late Riazuddin Ahmed the said suit land along with the commercial premises fell in the share of the defendant/respondent No.1, Aminuddin Ahmed. The suit land was let out by the respondent/defendant No.1 to the respondent/defendant Nos. 2 and 3 on monthly tenant basis. The defendant/respondent No.1 proposed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff/appellant which he agreed to purchase. An agreement for sale was executed on 02.08.2010 between plaintiff/appellant and the defendant/respondent No.1. The total consideration for the said sale was fixed at Rs.50,000/- and out of which the plaintiff/appellant paid Rs.20,000 as advance amount to the defendant/respondent No.1 on that date. The defendant/respondent No.1 promised to execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant/plaintiff within three years from the date of agreement after obtaining sale permission from the competent authority. The appellant/plaintiff in the year 2012 requested the defendant/respondent No.1 to execute the sale deed but the same was avoided by the defendant/respondent No.1. The plaintiff/appellant is ready and willing to pay the balance consideration amount to the defendant/respondent No.1 but the defendant/respondent No.1 failed to perform the stipulations made in the said agreement for which the plaintiff/appellant is compelled to institute the suit. 3. The defendant/respondent No.1 contested the case by filing his written statement. In his written statement it was stated that the defendant/respondent No.2 and 3 are his tenants in respect of the RCC shop premises consisting two shop rooms. 4. 3. The defendant/respondent No.1 contested the case by filing his written statement. In his written statement it was stated that the defendant/respondent No.2 and 3 are his tenants in respect of the RCC shop premises consisting two shop rooms. 4. According to the defendant/respondent No.1, due to his urgent need of money for treatment of his wife, he agreed to sell the said two rooms to the defendant/respondent Nos.2 and 3 and prior to it, for selling the said rooms he approached the appellant/plaintiff but the appellant/plaintiff did not respond and accordingly the same was promised to be sold to defendant/respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The defendant/respondent No.1 executed agreement for sale on 03.02.2009 and 07.05.2009 with the defendant/respondent Nos. 2 and 3 including the said two rooms consisting the suit property. The defendant/respondent No.1 also in his written statement submitted that although he offered his brother (plaintiff/appellant) the aforesaid property at Rs, 12,00,000/- but he refused to purchase the same at that price due to which the defendant/respondent No.1 had entered into an agreements for sale of the said suit property to the defendant/respondent Nos. 2 and 3 separately. It is further submitted that the appellant/plaintiff was well aware of the facts that the defendant/respondent No.1 had entered into agreement for sale with the defendant/respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The defendant/respondent No.1 further pleaded that in the year 2009 his wife was seriously ill and during that period he was in urgent need of money for expensive treatment of his wife and in spite of treatment his wife expired on 21.12.2009 and due to sudden death of his wife he totally broke down and by taking advantage of the situation his brother, the appellant/plaintiff forced him to execute some documents. The plaintiff/appellant as per the pleadings of defendant/respondent No.1 had committed fraud on him and instituted the present suit as no prudent man would believe that a property valued more than Rs.9,00,000/- could be agreed to be sold at a mere price of Rs.50,000/-. The defendant/respondent No.1 further submitted that he did not receive any money from the plaintiff/appellant for selling the suit property nor on the promise for selling the same. 5. The defendant/respondent Nos. 2 and 3 also contested the case by filing separate written statement. The defendant/respondent No.2 in his written statement has submitted that he and the defendant/respondent No.3 are tenants under the defendant/respondent No.1. 5. The defendant/respondent Nos. 2 and 3 also contested the case by filing separate written statement. The defendant/respondent No.2 in his written statement has submitted that he and the defendant/respondent No.3 are tenants under the defendant/respondent No.1. The defendant/respondent No.1 had entered into an agreement for sale with the defendant/respondent No.2 on 03.02.2009 for selling land measuring 83.74 sq. ft. along with the RCC rooms on the ground floor and the total sale consideration was fixed at Rs.4,50,000/- and out of which an amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid by the defendant/respondent No.2 to defendant/respondent No.1. The defendant/respondent No.2 also paid the second installment of Rs.1,30,000/- to the defendant/respondent No.1 and applied for sale permission to the concerned authorities. 6. The defendant/respondent No.3 also in his written statement pleaded that he is possessing 77 sq. ft. of land as a tenant under the defendant/respondent No.1. The defendant/respondent No.1 had entered in a sale agreement with him for selling the suit property under his possession as tenant at a total sale consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- and he has paid Rs.2,00,000/- to the defendant/respondent No.1 as advance amount. Such agreement for sale with the defendant/respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are known to the appellant/plaintiff. Under such circumstances, the subsequent agreement for sale if entered into by the defendant/respondent No.1 with the plaintiff/appellant, the same is void and as such the suit is liable to be dismissed. 7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues: “a. Whether there is cause of action? b. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party? c. Whether the agreement for sale dated 2/08/2010 was fraudulently obtained by the plaintiff? d. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the decree as prayed for? e. To what are the relief/relief’s the plaintiff is entitle to?” 8. During trial appellant/plaintiff examined two witnesses including him and exhibited nine numbers of documents. The respondent/defendants adduced four witnesses and exhibited six numbers of documents. The learned trial Court after conclusion of the trial dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 06.02.2015 passed by the trial court in Title Suit No. 54/2012. 9. The appellant/plaintiff filed Title Appeal No.08/2015 challenging the judgment and decree dated 06.02.2015 in the court of Civil Judge, Jorhat. The learned trial Court after conclusion of the trial dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 06.02.2015 passed by the trial court in Title Suit No. 54/2012. 9. The appellant/plaintiff filed Title Appeal No.08/2015 challenging the judgment and decree dated 06.02.2015 in the court of Civil Judge, Jorhat. After hearing the said appeal, the learned First Appellate Court dismissed Title Appeal No.08/2015 vide judgment and decree dated 20.08.2016. 10. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 20.08.2016 passed by the Civil Judge, Jorhat, the plaintiff/appellant has preferred this regular Second Appeal assailing the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court. 11. Mr. Jalan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that there is no finding with respect to the agreement for sale (exhibit-1) that the same is void and liable to be cancelled and for the said reason the learned courts below was wrong in not passing the decree for specific performance of contract. It is also submitted that both the courts below has failed to apply its discretion for not decreeing the suit for specific performance of contract. It was also argued by the learned counsel that both the courts below has failed to examine the evidence on record in the proper perspective and as such the finding of the courts below that the exhibite-1 was obtained fraudulently are perverse. So Mr. Jalan submits that this Second Appeal involves substantial questions of law to be formulated and decided. 12. Perused the pleadings of the parties and the judgment passed by both the courts below. The learned First Appellate Court scrutinized each and every issue and the finding arrived by the trial court on the basis of the evidence on record. The First Appellate Court while deciding the issue No.3 came to the finding that although the plaintiff/appellant claimed that the respondent/defendant No.1 had received an amount of Rs.20,000/- as advance sale consideration but he failed to show any receipt of the same nor any endorsement of the defendant/respondent No.1 on the exhibit-1 (the agreement for sale). The learned first Appellate Court on proper appreciation of the evidence of the appellant/plaintiff as PW-1, came to the conclusion that he was aware that the respondent/defendant No.1 owing to his urgent need of money for the treatment of his wife entered into sale transactions with the respondent/defendant Nos. 2 and 3. The learned first Appellate Court on proper appreciation of the evidence of the appellant/plaintiff as PW-1, came to the conclusion that he was aware that the respondent/defendant No.1 owing to his urgent need of money for the treatment of his wife entered into sale transactions with the respondent/defendant Nos. 2 and 3. PW-1 also admitted in his evidence that his brother, respondent/defendant No.1 had sold a plot of land measuring 1K 3L’s at an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- in the year 2011. The suit property as per the PW-1 is a valuable land situated in a commercial area. The plaintiff/appellant as a PW-1 also exhibited one of the agreements for sale the defendant/respondent No.1 entered with the respondent/defendant No.3 as exhibit-7. The respondent/defendant side also exhibited D and E the agreements for sale of defendant/respondent No.1 with defendant/respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The learned court below scrutinized both the documents i.e. exhibit D and E and came to the conclusion that both the sale agreements were executed on 03.02.2009 and 07.05.2009 at a total consideration amount of Rs.4,50,000/- each. The learned First Appellate Court on scrutiny of exhibit-1 found that the total sale consideration for 2 RCC rooms (subject matter of exhibit-D and E) was fixed at Rs.50,000/- only out of which Rs.20,000/- was shown to be paid to the respondent/defendant No.1. Finally the learned First Appellate Court came to its finding that no prudent man would sold his land along with two RCC shop rooms situated at a highly commercial place at a mere consideration of Rs.50,000/- wherein the respondent/defendant No.1 had already received an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- for the same property and that too prior to the alleged execution of the exhibit-1 by the respondent/defendant No.1. 13. The fact that the respondent/defendant No.1 was totally broken down both mentally and physically owing to the death of his wife had been supported by the PW-2, one Abbas Neog, who was an attesting witness to the exhibit-1, agreement for sale. The said PW-2 as per the appreciation of the evidence by the learned First Appellate Court also admitted that there were no other persons/witnesses present at the time of execution of exhibit-1 by the respondent/defendant No.1. The said agreement exhibit-1 was executed at the residence of appellant/plaintiff and though the same was surrounded by the relatives of appellant/plaintiff none was present at the time of execution of the said exhibit-1. The said agreement exhibit-1 was executed at the residence of appellant/plaintiff and though the same was surrounded by the relatives of appellant/plaintiff none was present at the time of execution of the said exhibit-1. The first appellate court from the evidence of PW-2 came to the conclusion that none of them had seen the contents of exhibit-1 and all of them only put their signatures in the respective places as shown by the PW-2. Considering all the surrounding circumstances, the first appellate court conclusively held that the exhibit-1, agreement for sale was induced to be executed by misrepresentation and the appellant/plaintiff played fraud on the respondent/defendant No.1. 14. The learned First Appellate Court while deciding the issue No.4 (though numbered as (d) hereinabove) from materials available on record, came to the conclusion that prior to execution of exhibit- D and E, the respondent/defendant No.1 proposed to sell the suit property to his brothers and sisters including the plaintiff/appellant at a consideration of Rs.12,00,000/-. It was also observed that after execution of the agreement for sale dated 03.02.2009 (exhibit- D/exhibit-7) the plaintiff/appellant through his advocate sent his legal notice informing the respondent/defendant No.1 that he was ready and willing to purchase the suit property at the price fixed by the respondent/defendant No.1. In response to the said legal notice dated 10.02.2009, respondent/defendant No.1 replied through exhibit C and requested the plaintiff/appellant to be present in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Jorhat along with full consideration amount for execution of the sale deed. But the plaintiff/appellant failed to act as per the request made by the respondent/defendant No.1 through Exhibit-C. 15. Finding no alternative, respondent/defendant No.1 on 07.05.2009 entered into an agreement for sale with the respondent/defendant No.3 by executing the registered agreement for sale exhibit-E. Finally, the learned First Appellate Court below refused to apply the discretion for granting the decree for specific performance of contract to the plaintiff/appellant and as such this second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff/appellant. 16. Equity plays an important role in governing the discretion of a Court in decreeing the suit for specific performance of contract. It is the duty of the court to state the reasons for applying its discretion by either way. In Mademsetty Satyanarayana Vs. 16. Equity plays an important role in governing the discretion of a Court in decreeing the suit for specific performance of contract. It is the duty of the court to state the reasons for applying its discretion by either way. In Mademsetty Satyanarayana Vs. G. Yelloji Rao and others as reported in AIR 1965 SC 1405 the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows in para 11: “..........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 the 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.” 17. In the present case in hand the defendant/respondent No.1 had done all possible means to give the proposal of sale of the suit property not only to the plaintiff/appellant but to the rest of his family members. The appellant/plaintiff made him a false promise that he was ready and willing to purchase one of the rooms out of the suit property at a consideration of Rs.12,00,000/-. On the basis of the said promise the defendant/respondent No.1 asked the plaintiff/appellant to be present at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Jorhat for execution of the sale deed but the appellant/plaintiff failed to honour his own promise and thereafter the defendant/respondent No.1 was compelled to enter into an agreement for sale with the defendant/respondent No.3 vide exhibit-E, the agreement for sale. Exhibit-1 though shown to have been executed by the defendant/respondent No.1 but that was subsequent to the execution of the exhibit- D and E and that too at a total sale consideration of Rs.50,000/- only against the already agreed amount of Rs.9,00,000/- with respondent/defendant Nos. 2 and 3 as aforesaid. The fact of the weak mental condition after the death of the wife of the defendant/respondent No.1 has been supported by the PW-2. Under such circumstances, and with the materials piece of evidence on record the finding of fact by the courts below that a fraud was played by the appellant/plaintiff on the defendant/respondent No.1 cannot be brushed aside. The fact of the weak mental condition after the death of the wife of the defendant/respondent No.1 has been supported by the PW-2. Under such circumstances, and with the materials piece of evidence on record the finding of fact by the courts below that a fraud was played by the appellant/plaintiff on the defendant/respondent No.1 cannot be brushed aside. Accordingly, on the basis of the facts concluded by both the courts below the discretion so applied in non-granting decree for specific performance of contract in favour of appellant/plaintiff cannot be termed to be incorrect. 18. The learned courts below cannot decide the matter as if the courts below are bound to pass a decree for specific performance of contract presuming that the exhibit-1 was executed by defendant/respondent No.1 on his own volition and put the defendant/respondent No.1 in further hardship by directing him to refuse the advance amount already accepted from the defendant/respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Under such circumstances, it can very well be concluded that the representation and the negligence of the plaintiff/appellant are directly responsible in inducing the defendant/respondent No.1 to change his position by entering into agreements for sale i.e. exhibit- D and E with the defendant/respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Under such circumstances, the discretion applied by both the courts below is sound enough and well within the broad para-meters of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 19. This Court, as the Second Appellate Court cannot interfere with the discretion applied by both the courts below unless the same is found to be inequitable from the point of view of the plaintiff/appellant. In the present case in hand the discretion so applied by the courts below, if reversed, would amount to an onerous bargain on the part of the defendant/respondent No.1 which this Court as the Second Appellate Court cannot do so on the facts and circumstances arrived at by the final Court of facts. This aspect must also be looked into by this Court as the Second Appellate Court and the same flows from the broad para-meters of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 20. Hence, the present appeal is devoid of any substantial question of law to be formulated and decided. This Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage.