JUDGMENT & ORDER : Akil Kureshi, J. This appeal is filed by the original defendants to challenge the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2014 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot, in Special Civil Suit No. 168 of 2011. Being First Appeal, the appellant is entitled to raise all questions of law and facts. Ordinarily, First Appeals are admitted liberally provided the appellant shows at least some prima facie arguable case. However, in the present case, having heard learned advocates for the parties at considerable length, we notice no arguable point in favour of the appellants. We propose to dismiss the appeal for following reasons. 2. Respondent-Original plaintiff had filed Special Civil Suit seeking execution of an agreement to sale dated 19.07.2011 of Flat No. 302 of Rani Tower-B, Rajkot. According to the plaintiff, the defendants-mother and daughter were the owners of the said property. They were interested in disposing of the property. The defendants were permanent residents of UK. The plaintiff got in touch with them through a middle man Dhirenbhai Thakkar. The defendants had indicated Rs. 30 lacs as a sale price. Plaintiff agreed to pay the same and actually paid a sum of Rs. 10,95,000/- in UK on 14.06.2011. The defendants had agreed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 then came to Rajkot. However, after meeting with the plaintiff, she started evading the topic of execution of sale. The plaintiff therefore, gave an advertisement in Akila New Paper on 19.07.2011 putting general public at large to notice about such agreement. Defendant No.1 thereupon, demanded further sum of Rs. 3.50 lacs over and above the agreed price of Rs. 30 lacs for the said flat. The plaintiff agreed to this price revision and paid a further sum of Rs. 4,05,000/- in cash on 19.07.2011 which, the defendant No.1 accepted and executed an agreement to sale on a stamp paper which was signed by her for herself and as power of attorney holder of her daughter, defendant No.2. At that time, Harishbhai Joshi and Dhirenbhai Thakkar were present as witnesses. Advocate Jatin Kariya had also signed. The defendant had also given receipts for the cash payments. Thus, the plaintiff had paid a total sum of Rs. 15 lacs towards the sale consideration. The defendants still did not execute the sale deed and showed inability to do so. At that time, Harishbhai Joshi and Dhirenbhai Thakkar were present as witnesses. Advocate Jatin Kariya had also signed. The defendant had also given receipts for the cash payments. Thus, the plaintiff had paid a total sum of Rs. 15 lacs towards the sale consideration. The defendants still did not execute the sale deed and showed inability to do so. The plaintiff therefore issued a legal notice through his advocate on 23.07.2011 to the defendants. A public notice was issued on 09.08.2011. Defendants were also contacted who flatly refused to execute the sale deed. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. He was prepared to pay the remaining sale consideration of Rs. 18,50,000/-. The defendants, however, refused to accept the same and execute the sale deed. With these averments the plaintiff sought a decree of specific performance of the agreement to sale dated 19.07.2011. 3. The defendants appeared and filed a written statement at Exh 27 in which, the factum of having received a sum of Rs. 10,95,000/- in UK was not disputed. However, the main stand taken to oppose the suit was that she was mislead about the correct sale price of the flat by the middle man Dhirenbhai Thakkar. The correct market price of the flat on the date of agreement was Rs. 55 lacs. When defendant No.1 came to India, she contacted Pankajbhai Parekh, the Chairman of the Rani Tower Association who told her that the market price of the flat cannot be less than Rs. 55 lacs. She contended that the agreement dated 19.07.2011 was signed by defendant No.1 under force and coercion. It was averred that defendant No.1 had not signed the agreement to sale voluntarily. It was on account of force and coercion by Dhirenbhai Thakkar that she was made to sign. It was stated that the defendant had not read or followed the contents of agreement to sale. 4. The Trial Court raised following issues: "Issues 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendants intended to sale suit property for Rs. 30,00,000/- (Thirty lacs) and plaintiff had paid Rs. 10,95,000/- (Ten lac ninety five thousand) in cash and defendants have given receipt on 14.06.2011? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that as per the say of the defendnat the price of the suit property was agreed at Rs. 33,50,000/- and Rs. 30,00,000/- (Thirty lacs) and plaintiff had paid Rs. 10,95,000/- (Ten lac ninety five thousand) in cash and defendants have given receipt on 14.06.2011? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that as per the say of the defendnat the price of the suit property was agreed at Rs. 33,50,000/- and Rs. 4,05,000/- was paid in cash on 19.07.2011 and agreement to sale was made on stamp paper of Rs. 100/-? 3. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is ready and willing to perform the contract as per the agreement to sale? 4. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant had made the agreement willingly and without any influence? 5. Whether the defendant prove that the agreement was made by fraud? 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim relief as prayed for? 7. What order and decree?" 5. These issues were answered in following terms: "1. Issue No. 1 In Positive 2. Issue No. 2 In Positive 3. Issue No. 3 In Positive 4. Issue No. 4 In Positive 5. Issue No. 5 In Negative 6. Issue No. 6 In Positive 7. Issue No.7 As per final order" 6. The Trial Court decreed the suit, directed defendants to execute the registered sale deed of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff after receiving remaining sale consideration. 7. The plaintiff was examined at Exh 30. His examination-in-chief was along the line of the averments contained in the plaint. In the cross-examination, main focus of the defendants was on the prevailing market rate of the suit property as on the date of the agreement. He denied having exerted any force or coercion on defendant No.1 in the process of execution of agreement to sale dated 19.07.2011. 8. The plaintiff also examined Dhirenbhai Thakkar at Exh 45. He supported the plaintiff's version of having entered into the deal for sale of the suit property for Rs 30 lacs initially, upon which, payment of Rs. 10,95,000/- was made in UK and subsequently, execution of agreement on 19.07.2011 on revised terms pursuant to which further sum of Rs. 4,05,000/- was paid to defendant No.1 at Rajkot. In the cross-examination, he was also questioned about the force and coercion being exerted on defendant No.1 which he denied. 9. The defendant did not enter the witness box. They however, examined certain witnesses. One Nazabhai Ukabhai was examined at Exh 54. 4,05,000/- was paid to defendant No.1 at Rajkot. In the cross-examination, he was also questioned about the force and coercion being exerted on defendant No.1 which he denied. 9. The defendant did not enter the witness box. They however, examined certain witnesses. One Nazabhai Ukabhai was examined at Exh 54. He was a power of attorney of the defendants. His examination-in-chief was along the line of the written statement filed by the defendants. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he had no personal knowledge about the transaction which took place with the defendants when they were in UK. He was not aware about the purchase of the flat by the defendants or the price at which, it was purchased. He had no information about the transaction between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. He admitted that when the power of attorney was given, the suit was already filed. He further admitted that he had no information about any transaction which took place between the plaintiff and the defendant before the power of attorney was given to him. 10. Defendant No.1 examined Dilipbhai Chandarana at Exh 69. He was a registered valuer. He had given the valuation report of the suit property which was produced at Exh 70. According to his estimate, the value of the property as on 14.06.2011 was Rs. 52,85,000/- and as on the date of the deposition which was 22.10.2013, the market value of the property would be Rs. 70 lacs. In the cross examination he stated that he had estimated the value of the property in the year 2011 on the basis of other property situated in the vicinity. He had also contacted estate agents of the area from whom he had collected information. However, in the valuation report, he had not given any details of contacting the estate agents or comparing the property of the locality. He had not looked into the transaction of other properties of Rani Tower where the flat was situated. 11. Defendant No.1 examined one Pankaj Parekh, Chairman of the flat owners association. He stated that at the relevant time, the market value of the flat was Rs. 50 to 55 lacs at the minimum. Currently, the prices had reached Rs. 75 lacs. In the cross examination he admitted that he had purchased his own flat in the same building in the year 2000 for Rs. 9 lacs. He stated that at the relevant time, the market value of the flat was Rs. 50 to 55 lacs at the minimum. Currently, the prices had reached Rs. 75 lacs. In the cross examination he admitted that he had purchased his own flat in the same building in the year 2000 for Rs. 9 lacs. He has showed the documents at Exh 34 as per which, the defendants had purchased their flat for Rs. 8 lacs. He did not have any document to show that the market value of the flat on the date of the transaction was more than Rs. 30 lacs. 12. On the basis of such evidence, the Trial Court, in the impugned judgment, believed the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant as per which, initially, the defendants had agreed to sale the suit property for Rs. 30 lacs pursuant to which, a sum of Rs. 10,95,000/- was also paid in cash to them in UK on 14.06.2011. Subsequently, when defendant No.1 came to India she showed reluctance to execute the sale deed and demanded further consideration of Rs. 4,05,000/- was agreed. Plaintiff paid further sum of Rs. 14,50,000/-. Agreement to sale was executed on 19.07.2011. The Trial Court also held that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract and the defendants had failed to establish the allegations of force or coercion. The Trial Court did not accept the version of the valuer regarding the correct market value of the property in question. 13. Appearing for the appellants, learned counsel Mr. Pathak vehemently contended that the appellants were misguided about the correct market value. They were residents of UK. They were not aware about the prices of real estate in Rajkot. When defendant No.1 came to India, she realized that the prevailing market price was much higher than Rs. 30 lacs which the plaintiff had offered. He submitted that her signature was obtained on 19.07.2011 through force and coercion. He contended that in any view of the matter, in terms of section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, it would be wholly unconscionable to grant a decree of specific performance. 30 lacs which the plaintiff had offered. He submitted that her signature was obtained on 19.07.2011 through force and coercion. He contended that in any view of the matter, in terms of section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, it would be wholly unconscionable to grant a decree of specific performance. He relied on the following judgments: (i) In case of Manak Chand vs. Puran and anr, (1960) AIR M.P. 235; (ii) In case of Hemanta Mondal and ors vs. Ganesh Chandra Naskar, (2015) AIR SC 3757; (iii) In case of Ramakrishna Naidu vs. Palaniappa Chettiar, (1963) AIR Madras 17 14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent original plaintiff opposed the appeal contending that the defendants had willingly and voluntarily agreed to sale their flat initially for a sum of Rs. 30 lacs later on, it was renegotiated at Rs. 33,50,000/-. The plaintiff had paid Rs. 15 lacs towards such sale consideration and had always shown willingness to pay the rest. The defendants backed out from the promise and refused to execute the sale deed. The plaintiff had acted bona fide and all through out with due promptness. The Trial Court did not commit any error in allowing the suit. 15. The evidence on record is sufficiently clear. The defendants do not dispute the initial negotiations pursuant to which, while they were still in UK they had agreed to accept sale consideration of Rs. 30 lacs for sale of the flats. Whatever be the further developments, on 19.07.2011 defendant No. 1, during her visit to Rajkot, executed an agreement in favour of the plaintiff on her behalf as well as, as per power of attorney of defendant No.2. As per this agreement, the plaintiff would pay a total sale consideration of Rs. 33,50,000/-. The document itself records that a total of Rs. 15 lacs have already paid over. The defendants do not dispute execution of this document nor the contents thereof. Their main defences are two fold. Firstly that they were misled into believing that the correct market value of the property in question as on the date of the agreement was in the vicinity of Rs. 30 lacs whereas the going market rate was close to Rs. 55 lacs. Secondly that defendant No.1 was forced and coerced into signing the agreement in the evening of 19.07.2011. 16. 30 lacs whereas the going market rate was close to Rs. 55 lacs. Secondly that defendant No.1 was forced and coerced into signing the agreement in the evening of 19.07.2011. 16. Both these defendants need to be rejected out of hand. There is nothing on the record whatsoever to suggest that the plaintiff, through misrepresentation of facts, made the defendants to believe that the market value of the flat was much lower than the prevailing real price. First and foremost, there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that the going rate of the flat in question on the relevant date was Rs. 55 lacs, as contended by the defendants. As noted, they have examined witnesses, valuer Dilipbhai Chandarana and Pankajbhai Parekh, the Chairman of Rani Tower Association. Both these persons though stated that the market rate of the flat was about 55 lacs produced no evidence supporting such value. The valuer had given a valuation report which, according to him was based on his inquiries about the properties in the neighborhood and with the estate agents. He had produced no supporting material in this respect. He had not cited any comparable sale instances. He had not inquired into the price of the flats in the same building. Likewise, Shri Pankaj Parekh also deposed as per his general belief and information. He agreed that he himself had purchased flat at Rs. 9 lacs in the year 2000 and the defendants had purchased the same for Rs. 8 lacs. He had no document to show that any of the flats was sold for more than Rs. 30 lacs. He was not an expert in the subject of valuation of properties. 17. Quite apart from this, the crucial question is, can the defendants plead that they were mistaken about the correct market value of the property and therefore be allowed to resile from the commitment to transfer the property at agreed rate? It is well settled principle that in a contract executed between the two parties out of their own volition, the correctness, adequacy or justness of the price bargained is not a matter of legal dispute. It is well settled principle that in a contract executed between the two parties out of their own volition, the correctness, adequacy or justness of the price bargained is not a matter of legal dispute. As long as the defendants do not establish that the plaintiff, through misrepresentation of facts, had mislead them into wrong belief, merely because the defendants may have made a mistake about their assessment of correct market value of the property cannot be a good ground to avoid performing their part of the obligation of the agreement. 18. With respect to the execution of the agreement dated 19.07.2011, the defendants have produced no evidence to enable the Court to come to the conclusion that defendant No.1 was forced or coercioned into signing the same. We may recall, defendant no.1 did not enter the witness box. Instead, her power of attorney was examined. He admitted that such power of attorney was given after filing of the suit i.e. long after the relevant transaction were over. The witness admitted that he had no personal information about the background of the negotiations or about any of the transactions which took place before he was given power of attorney. The factum of force or coercion was within the personal knowledge of defendant No.1. She did not enter the witness box to establish such allegations. On all counts the defendants failed to rebut the reliable evidence produced by the plaintiff. The plaintiff had acted promptly at all stages. Substantial payments were made before or while either executing the agreement. Shortly thereafter notice was issued by the plaintiff to the defendants for executing the sale deed since then he was prepared to pay the remaining sale consideration. There is no reason to deprive the plaintiff of a decree for specific performance of the agreement. This is not a case where the defendants had made out any ground for refusing to exercise the discretion. Firstly, as noted, the plaintiff had always acted promptly and showed his bona fides and preparedness to perform his part of the contract. Secondly, the time gap between the agreement to sale, filing of the suit and passing of the decree are not unduly long. Thirdly, if at all the defendants had taken a long time to file this appeal after the decree was passed, the delay was of course condoned. 19. Secondly, the time gap between the agreement to sale, filing of the suit and passing of the decree are not unduly long. Thirdly, if at all the defendants had taken a long time to file this appeal after the decree was passed, the delay was of course condoned. 19. We would however direct payment of interest on the remaining sale consideration which the Trial Court has not done. Considering that the transaction is involving sale of immovable property and there is a trend of steady increase in prices thereof particularly in urban agglomerations, we would award simple interest @ 12% per annum from the date of notice i.e. 23.07.2011 till actual payment. Accordingly, while upholding the judgment and decree of the Trial Court it is directed that the plaintiff shall deposit the remaining sale consideration before the Court below by 10.09.2018 with simple interest @ 12% per annum from 23.07.2011 till actual payment upon which, the decree for performance of the specific performance of the agreement to sale shall be executed. 20. First Appeal along with Civil Application is disposed of accordingly.