JUDGMENT : Challenging a decree for specific performance, the defendant is in appeal. 2. Ext.A1 agreement dated 15.01.05 is sought to be specifically enforced. The extent of property covered therein is 48.24 cents. The consideration fixed is Rs.24,500/-per cent payable for the extent found available on actual measurement. Out of the total sale consideration an amount of Rs.50,000/-was paid towards advance sale consideration. The period fixed for performance was two months. Alleging failure on the part of the defendant to perform the contract, the suit was filed. 3. Though the defendant contended that the nonperformance of the contract was at the instance of the plaintiff, the trial court on evidence found against the defendant. On finding the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff, the trial court granted a decree for specific performance. 4. This appeal was earlier disposed of by this Court as per judgment dated 30.06.17 affirming the finding of the trial court that the breach of contract was at the instance of the defendant and remanding back to the trial court for consideration of the issue regarding exercise of discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The judgment was carried in appeal before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.18599/17. The Apex Court interfered with the order of remand and directed this Court to consider regarding the discretion enshrined under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act. It is thus that the appeal is before this Court. 5. Heard learned Senior Counsel Sri.K.Ramakumar on behalf of the appellant-defendant and learned Senior Counsel Sri.T.Krishnanunni on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff. 6. The only question that arises for determination in this appeal is regarding the exercise of discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act. It is not in dispute that at the time of entering into Ext.A1 agreement, the defendant was in highly impecunious circumstances which compelled him to enter into Ext.A1 agreement for sale. It has been so specifically pleaded by him. The said state of affairs is not in dispute. According to the defendant, it is such state of penury which compelled him to enter into Ext.A1 agreement for sale for a throw away price. From the evidence of PW1-the plaintiff, it has come out that he is a financier. Ext.A1 agreement is in the year 2005 and the evidence was taken in the suit in 2006. According to the defendant, it is such state of penury which compelled him to enter into Ext.A1 agreement for sale for a throw away price. From the evidence of PW1-the plaintiff, it has come out that he is a financier. Ext.A1 agreement is in the year 2005 and the evidence was taken in the suit in 2006. In the cross-examination of PW1-the plaintiff, it was specifically put to him that the property would fetch centage value of more than Rs.1 lakh for which the plaintiff pretends ignorance. Anyhow, he does not deny the suggestion. 7. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-defendant contends that Ext.A1 contains a default clause which provides that on breach of the agreement by the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled for damages. The learned Senior Counsel contends that a provision enabling the plaintiff for a specific performance of the agreement is conspicuously absent in Ext.A1. Learned Senior Counsel relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Dadarao v. Ramrao [ 1999 (8) SCC 416 ] contends that if the agreement contains a stipulation for damages and not for enforcement of the agreement for specific performance, all that the plaintiff could seek for is damages. Noticeably that was a case where the agreement contained a specific stipulation to the effect that, “no sale deed will be executed” on breach of the agreement. However, Ext.A1 does not contain any negative stipulation as was available in the said case. Therefore, it cannot be held that the plaintiff is not entitled to seek for specific performance of Ext.A1. At any rate, the conspicuous absence of a clause enabling specific performance of the agreement and the presence of a clause enabling the plaintiff to recover damages, could definitely be taken as a circumstance to indicate that the parties intended that on breach of the agreement, payment of damages would adequately compensate the parties. At any rate, that would also be a factor to be taken into consideration while exercising discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act. 8. On the facts and circumstances as noticed supra, I feel that this is a fit case where the discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act is to be exercised against the grant of a decree for specific performance. The aforesaid aspects have not been taken into consideration by the trial court. 8. On the facts and circumstances as noticed supra, I feel that this is a fit case where the discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act is to be exercised against the grant of a decree for specific performance. The aforesaid aspects have not been taken into consideration by the trial court. The decree and judgment of the trial court insofar it granted a decree for specific performance is liable to be interfered with and I do so. 9. Having found that the defendant has committed breach of contract, necessarily the plaintiff is entitled for refund of the advance sale consideration paid with interest thereon. The advance sale consideration paid is Rs.50,000/-. Considering the prevalent rate of interest and on the facts and circumstances, I consider that grant of interest at the rate of 12% per annum would be just and proper. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The decree and judgment of the trial court are set aside. The plaintiff is granted a decree for realisation of Rs.50,000/-with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of agreement (15.01.05) till date of the suit and thereafter also at the same rate till realisation from the plaint schedule property as a charge and by sale of it and also from the defendant personally and from his assets. No costs.