JUDGMENT : DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J. 1. It is now well accepted as a fundamental premise that a contract for sale can be ordered to be specifically performed only if its terms provide substantial degree of certainty and only if they are capable of clear, precise and definite understanding and comprehension. The Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short, 'the Act'), under Section 20 thereof, expounds the jurisdiction of a court to decree specific performance as being discretionary and provides that a court is not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so. The court is bound to act in a sound and reasonable manner, guided by judicial principles and on considerations of fairness and reasonableness. 2. The facts that are involved in this case present an interesting situation. Even though the litigating parties have entered into a contract for sale of property, the agreement between them shows no consensus as to the actual extent of land sought to be dealt with and sold under it. The court below, therefore, declined to grant a decree of specific performance holding that in the absence of clarity and definitude in the contract as to the extent of land sought to be conveyed, it would not be justified in granting a decree for specific performance under Section 20 of the Act. 3. The appellant has challenged the judgment and decree of the court below in this appeal and we have been called upon to decide whether the court below was right in doing so. 4. This appeal arises from the judgment and decree of the Sub Court, Tirur in O.S.No.117 of 2005. The plaintiff in the suit has filed this appeal. The judgment impugned herein was delivered by the court below on 26.09.2007 in the suit, which was instituted by the appellant herein as plaintiff against the respondents, seeking a decree for specific performance of an agreement of sale entered into between them on 17.01.2005. This agreement has been placed on record and marked as Ext.A1, under which, an extent of 64 cents of land was agreed to be sold by the respondents and to be purchased by the appellant for an amount of Rs.6,750/- per cent. 5. This agreement has been placed on record and marked as Ext.A1, under which, an extent of 64 cents of land was agreed to be sold by the respondents and to be purchased by the appellant for an amount of Rs.6,750/- per cent. 5. It is virtually conceded to by the parties that an amount of Rs.20,000/- was paid as advance at the time when the agreement was entered into, the receipt of which has been acknowledged by the respondents in the agreement itself. As per the terms of the agreement, the parties were to enter into a sale deed within a period of 3½ months from the date of the agreement and the plaintiff alleges that, on 02.05.2005, it was mutually agreed to extend the period until 02.06.2005 and that he had, on that day, paid an additional amount of Rs.70,000/-towards advance. 6. The appellant alleged in the plaint that the property was not measured at the time when the agreement was entered into and that it was subjected to measurement only on 01.06.2005 and that on such measurement, the extent of land was seen to be 57.389 cents and not 64 cents, as was agreed between the parties. He asserts that since the extent was lower, he was not obligated to pay the entire sale consideration, as was agreed between them, and he contends that since Ext.A1 agreement fixed the price of each cent of land at Rs.6,750/-, he was only obligated to pay the amount for the actual extent that was seen after such measurement. According to him, the defendants were, however, unwilling to execute the sale deed and that he was constrained to file the suit seeking a decree for specific performance. 7. The defendants/respondents filed a written statement refuting all the allegations of the plaintiff/appellant. According to them, there was no confusion regarding the extent of land. They say that even though 64 cents were shown in Ext.A1 agreement, the appellant was aware, through a measurement that was done in March, 2005, that the extent was only 627/8 cents. The respondents vehemently assert that there was no measurement conducted on 01.06.2005, though it is conceded that there was an attempt to do so at the instance of the appellant. The respondents vehemently assert that there was no measurement conducted on 01.06.2005, though it is conceded that there was an attempt to do so at the instance of the appellant. They predicate that the appellant was, at no point of time, ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and that he was not in possession of sufficient resources to complete the contract, as agreed upon between them, under the mandate of Ext.A1. They, therefore, contend that the appellant is not entitled to a decree as prayed for and they also claim that they have suffered large amount of loss on account of the default of the appellant, thus entitling them to forfeit the entire amount of Rs.90,000/- admittedly received by them as advance. 8. The court below framed issues, based on the contentions of the parties, and in the trial of the suit, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and he marked Exts.A1 to A4 documents. The first defendant examined himself as DW1 and examined two other witnesses as DW2 and DW3. The Advocate Commissioner who was deputed by the court below was examined as DW4. 9. On an assessment of the evidence on record and the materials available, the court below entered in to a conclusion that the appellant, contrary to his assertion, had been unwilling to perform his part of the agreement; that he did not have the resources to make payment of the balance sale consideration and that his claim that the extent of land was not 64 cents but only 57.389 cents did not stand proved. On such basis, the court below repelled the prayer for specific performance, however, granting the appellant a decree for an amount of Rs.90,000/-, being the advance paid by him to be realised from the respondents with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of suit till its realisation along with proportionate costs. The appellant has filed this appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the court below and on the contention that he is entitled to a decree for specific performance of Ext.A1 agreement. 10. We have heard Sri.P.V.Jyothi Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.K.Ramachandran, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 11. We have considered the pleadings on record, the evidence available and the exhibits marked in trial quite in extenso. 10. We have heard Sri.P.V.Jyothi Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.K.Ramachandran, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 11. We have considered the pleadings on record, the evidence available and the exhibits marked in trial quite in extenso. Our attempt is to see whether the appellant had been really unwilling in performing his part of the contract and whether the respondents have committed any default in allowing such execution of the document. 12. As we have already indicated above, the singular contention of the appellant is that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and to make payment of the balance sale consideration within the time granted in Ext.A1. He says that he was unable to do so, or rather, incapacitated from doing so only because the extent of land was not found to be certain. According to him, even though in Ext.A1 agreement, 64 cents has been shown as the extent of the plaint schedule property, on actual measurement on 01.06.2005, the extent was found to be reduced to a mere 57.389 cents. The appellant appears to contend that since the extent is much lower than what was contracted, he was willing only to pay for the extent that was found in measurement and not for 64 cents of land. 13 Au contraire, the respondents say that it is true that in Ext.A1, 64 cents has been shown as the extent. It is their specific case, however, that as early as in March, 2005, namely a few days after Ext.A1 was entered into, there was a measurement of the property in which the extent was revealed as 627/8 cents. They say that the appellant was aware of this and that his contention that the extent was only 57.389 cents is only a facade to resile from the obligations under Ext.A1 agreement. They say that the contention of the appellant that the property was measured only on 01.06.2005 is completely improbable and unbelievable because even in Ext.A3, which is the reply caused to have been issued by the appellant to the legal notice issued by them, namely Ext.A2, his specific case is that even though arrangements were made for measurement of the property on 01.06.2005, the same could not be done on that day. The respondents, therefore, assert that there was no measurement on 01.06.2005, as alleged by the appellant and therefore, that his contention that the extent of the land was only 57.389 cents is completely without basis and without any sustenance. 14. We notice that the court below has considered all these issues quite in detail. It is true that in Ext.A1, the extent shown is 64 cents. There is a dispute as to the extent of land involved. It is admitted by the respondents that 64 cents of land is not available and only an extent of 627/8 cents is available and we see that it is their specific case that they would be willing to accept and be satisfied with the money for such extent of land. The appellant refutes this rather vociferously. According to him, the extent is much lower. He relies on Exts.C1 and C2 reports of the Advocate Commissioner in which the extent has been shown as only 54 cents of land. 15. We have examined these two reports in detail, since we understand that the contentions of the parties, to a large extent, hinge upon the statements contained in Exts.C1 and C2. We must say straight away that Ext.C2 sketch which accompanied Ext.C1 report does not appear to have been prepared by an expert in the field. It does not say how it was prepared and how the estimation of the extent has been entered into. It may be true that DW4, the Advocate Commissioner, while deposing as a witness for the defence said that she had prepared the sketch with the assistance of the surveyor and that she had employed a particular method in making the sketch and determining the extent. However, we are unable to find with certainty how the extent could have been arrived at in the manner that the Commissioner has done. In other words, we are unable to see that the extent of land is only 54 cents and this is more so because even as per the case of the appellant, the extent is 57.389 cents of land. This variation of about 4 cents of land is neither explained in the report of the Commissioner nor by PW1 while he mounted the box. We, therefore, see that there is a great amount of confusion as to the extent of land that is involved in this case. 16. This variation of about 4 cents of land is neither explained in the report of the Commissioner nor by PW1 while he mounted the box. We, therefore, see that there is a great amount of confusion as to the extent of land that is involved in this case. 16. The court below has also considered the question as to whether the appellant had the resources, at the relevant time, to honour his commitments under Ext.A1 agreement. We notice that the evidence on record would show that the appellant's case is that he was ready with the balance and that he had availed a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the Thenhipalam Service Co-operative Bank for such purpose. The court below has found, which we find to be justified, that there is not a scrap of evidence to prove this assertion except the bald statement made by PW1 that he had availed of a loan. This is also indicative of the probability that the appellant did not have any resource on his own and that admittedly and concededly he had to avail of a loan for the purpose of honouring his commitments. In the absence of documents or evidence to show that such a loan had been availed of by the appellant or at least, that such a loan was sanctioned by the bank, we are afraid that we cannot find much credence to this statement. The evidence on record would also show that as on 03.05.2005, there was only a balance of Rs.1,94,275.55 in the appellant's account. The balance sale consideration is more than Rs.4,00,000/- as on that date. We, of course, see that the appellant's assertion is that he had cash balance in other bank accounts but refused to bring on record the evidence to show the balance maintained in such accounts. A mere statement by PW1, the appellant herein, would not be sufficient to prove that he had resources as on that day to honour his commitments and to make payment of the balance sale consideration. It may be true that the evidence would show that as on 02.06.2005, during the extended period of Ext.A1, the appellant had a cash balance of Rs.2,76,948/-. It may be true that the evidence would show that as on 02.06.2005, during the extended period of Ext.A1, the appellant had a cash balance of Rs.2,76,948/-. However, this again would not help the appellant because, even on that day, we are unable to see anything on record to show that he had 4.32 lakhs 11 or above, which was the minimum amount required to honour the sale consideration as per Ext.A1. 17. There is yet another circumstance that guides us to believe that the appellant has not come before this Court with clean hands. The term of the agreement, which was originally for a period of 3½ months from 17.01.2005, was thereafter, on 02.05.2005, extended until 02.06.2005. Even on this date, the appellant had not approached the respondents showing his willingness to enter into the sale deed. In fact, on the contrary, it was the respondents who had, on 06.06.2005, namely, four days after the term expired, sent a legal notice to the appellant requiring him to make payment of the balance consideration. Even though the appellant received Ext.A2, he did not make payment of the amounts but chose to cause a reply notice to be issued, which is marked as Ext.A3, contending that though he is willing to make payment, he is refusing to do so since the property has not been properly measured. It is relevant and pertinent that in Ext.A3, the specific stand of the appellant is that the property could not be measured on 01.06.2005. There are specific and certain statements in Ext.A3 to the effect that even though he tried to have the property measured with the assistance of somebody called Sri.Unnikrishnan, that was not permitted to by the neighbours, since the measurement of the land could be possible only by first measuring a public pathway/road. The appellant, in Ext.A3, says that this was not permitted by the neighbours and that his plan for measurement of the property had to be, therefore, dropped. 18. The deposition of the witnesses in this case makes it absolutely ineluctable that there was no certainty as to the extent of land. When Ext.A1 indicates that the extent of land is 64 cents, the respondents say that it is 627/8 cents while the appellant maintains it is only 57.389 cents. To make matters worse, Ext.C2 report, though not based on an expert evaluation, states it to be 54 cents. When Ext.A1 indicates that the extent of land is 64 cents, the respondents say that it is 627/8 cents while the appellant maintains it is only 57.389 cents. To make matters worse, Ext.C2 report, though not based on an expert evaluation, states it to be 54 cents. When the extent of land is so amorphous, we do not see how Ext.A1 can then be allowed to be specifically performed. It is now settled law by various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the case of specific performance of contract, a great degree of certainty is required and it demands and requires a clear, definite and precise understanding of all the terms and that they must be clearly ascertained before their performance can be enforced. In the case at hand, unfortunately, the most vital of these factors, namely, the extent involved, has not been determined properly. In such view of the matter, we are certain that the decree for specific performance cannot be granted in a case of this nature. 19. Faced with this situation, the appellant has filed I.A.No.2694 of 2013 under Order Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure to bring on record additional evidence. We see that all the documents that have been sought to be brought on record are intended to show that the extent of land is much lower than 64 cents contrary to what is recorded in Ext.A1. The appellant also intends to show us that on the east and south of the property, there are public roads or pathways. We do not know how these documents would better the case of the appellant in appeal. We say this because it is virtually admitted, even in trial, that on the south and east of the property, there is a public pathway. This is conceded to by even the respondents in evidence and they say that it is after the land has been taken away for such pathway that the extent has now been attenuated to 627/8 cents. We are afraid, therefore, that the documents that have now been sought to be produced and marked in evidence as additional evidence cannot come to the aid of the appellant since, even if those documents are taken into account, it would only bring further confusion and the extent of land would then become much more amorphous and nebulous. We are afraid, therefore, that the documents that have now been sought to be produced and marked in evidence as additional evidence cannot come to the aid of the appellant since, even if those documents are taken into account, it would only bring further confusion and the extent of land would then become much more amorphous and nebulous. When the extent itself is imprecise, we are certain in our mind that this Court, exercising jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, would not be justified in using discretion in favour of either of the parties for the purpose of specifically enforcing such an agreement. 20. Sri.P.V.Jyothi Prasad, the learned counsel for the appellant relies on the judgment of this Court reported in Faisal Eroth v. Venkalath Raveendran ( 2013 (3) KLT 1041 ) in support of his contention that when an agreement contains reciprocal promises, the party who intends to perform will be justified in not doing so until the other side performs his obligations. We have no dispute regarding this proposition of law, as has been settled by this Court in the said judgment. However, in this case, what is vital to be considered is whether Ext.A1 has any such promises, reserved between the parties, as being reciprocal. We do not find any such reservation in Ext.A1 since the extent shown in Ext.A1 is 64 cents and the plaintiff agreed unambiguously to pay for such extent at the rate fixed therein at the time when this agreement was executed. We, therefore, are unable to comprehend how this judgment would come to the aid of the appellant in this case. 21. That having been said, we notice that the court below has found that the respondents are not entitled to forfeit any of the amounts that have been received by them as advance. The court below has proceeded correctly in evaluating the claim of the respondents for the alleged loss and damage suffered by them and it has found that there is nothing on record to show that the respondents have suffered any such loss. The court below has proceeded correctly in evaluating the claim of the respondents for the alleged loss and damage suffered by them and it has found that there is nothing on record to show that the respondents have suffered any such loss. Sections 73 to 75 of the Indian Contract Act, which relates to the claim for compensation or damages in the case of breach of contract, has been spoken to about by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by this Court in several occasions before, settling the law that only a party who establishes actual loss or damage as a consequence of the breach of the contract, will be entitled to forfeit the advance under the terms of Section 74 of the Contract Act. 22. The Specific Relief Act, on the other hand, grants jurisdiction to a Court, under Section 22(b) thereon, to decree return of the advance money or earnest amount in case the claim for specific performance is refused. In this case, the court below has refused the claim for specific performance, which, according to us, is justified on the evidence and materials available, and has, therefore, ordered the refund of the amount of Rs.90,000/-, admittedly received by the defendants as advance sale consideration under Ext.A1. In such view of the matter, we find no reason to interfere with the decree and judgment of the court below in O.S.No.117 of 2005 dated 26.09.2007 and we have no other option but to confirm the same. This appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed confirming the decree of the court below entitling the plaintiff the return of advance money of Rs.90,000/- from the defendants with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of suit till its realisation with proportionate costs through out including this appeal.