JUDGMENT : In this second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. the defendants in the suit are the appellants and the respondent is the plaintiff. O.S.No.52 of 2008 was filed by the plaintiff seeking the following relief: “(a) For specific performance of the registered agreement of sale dt. 17.01.2005 by directing the defendants to receive the balance sale considerate of Rs.30,500/-and to execute a regular sale deed and register the same in favour of the plaintiff or his nominee in respect of the plaint schedule property and deliver the possession of the same to the plaintiff and upon their failure to do so, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.30,500/-into Court and execute a regular sale deed and register the same in favour of the plaintiff on behalf of the defendants and deliver the possession of the same to the plaintiff.” 2. Defendants put in their contest. After due trial, the learned V Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur by judgment dated 31.12.2008 dismissed the suit. Aggrieved of it, the plaintiff filed A.S.No.152 of 2009. The defendants put in their contest. Learned first appellate Court agreed with the case of the plaintiff and set aside the lower Court judgment and allowed the appeal in the following terms: “9. In the result, the appeal is allowed, setting aside the judgment that is rendered in O.S.No.52 of 2008, dated 31.12.2008 by the Court of V Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. Thus, the suit is decreed with costs, directing the plaintiff to deposit the balance of sale consideration of Rs.30,500-00 (Rupees thirty thousand and five hundred only) with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from 16.01.2006 till the date of decree within one month from the date of decree and the second defendant is directed to execute registered sale deed by receiving the said sale consideration in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property, failing which, the appellant/plaintiff is at liberty to obtain the same through due process of law.” 3. At this juncture, it has to be noticed that the prayer in the suit shows preparedness of plaintiff to pay only Rs.30,500/-towards balance sale consideration. However, the first appellate Court’s direction to plaintiff indicates an additional payment of 24% interest. This aspect of the matter is one that is argued in this second appeal. 4. At this juncture, it has to be noticed that the prayer in the suit shows preparedness of plaintiff to pay only Rs.30,500/-towards balance sale consideration. However, the first appellate Court’s direction to plaintiff indicates an additional payment of 24% interest. This aspect of the matter is one that is argued in this second appeal. 4. It bears a mention here that during pendency of first appeal before learned Principal District Judge, Guntur, the plaintiff had filed I.A.No.714 of 2010 under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. seeking to permit him to amend the plaint and seek the alternative relief of refund of money along with interest. The first appellate Court dismissed that petition. The plaintiff carried the matter to this Court by way of C.R.P.No.2508 of 2010. This Court allowed the revision and permitted the plaintiff to have the plaint amended. In such circumstances, plaint was amended and the alternative relief was claimed in the following terms: “(b) alternatively, for the refund of advance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-paid to the defendants under the agreement of sale together with interest at 12% p.a. (amended as per CRP No.2508/2010 allowed by the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. dt. 11.06.2015.)” 5. It may also be noted that during pendency of the first appeal before the learned Principal District Judge, Guntur the 1st defendant died. It seems that by virtue of the property rights between each of the defendants, only the 2nd defendant became entitled to represent the case. Since the first appellate Court decreed the suit for specific performance, the defendants have carried the matter to this Court by this second appeal. 6. 139.5 square yards of vacant site out of Ac.12.12 cents of land in D.No.559 situate in Pedakakani Gram Panchayat, Near Boddurai Center, Guntur District is the immovable property owned by defendants. It is about that property the litigation arose. In the plaint, it is stated that defendants offered to sell and the plaintiff agreed to purchase the said property for a total consideration of Rs.1,30,500/-and defendants executed a registered agreement for sale dated 17.01.2005. On the date of agreement Rs.1,00,000/-was paid by plaintiff and was received by defendants towards advance sale consideration. In the plaint, it is stated that defendants offered to sell and the plaintiff agreed to purchase the said property for a total consideration of Rs.1,30,500/-and defendants executed a registered agreement for sale dated 17.01.2005. On the date of agreement Rs.1,00,000/-was paid by plaintiff and was received by defendants towards advance sale consideration. The stipulation in the agreement was that the plaintiff had to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.30,500/-within one year from the date of agreement and on payment of such balance sale consideration, the defendants shall execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. In the plaint, it is stated that within that one year time plaintiff approached both the defendants and requested them several times to receive balance sale consideration and register the sale deed and deliver possession of the property but the defendants were postponing it on one pretext or other. Thereafter, plaintiff came to know that the defendants were trying to alienate the property without the consent of the plaintiff and in violation of the agreed agreement for sale. On 24.08.2006 plaintiff got issued registered legal notice calling upon the defendants to receive the balance sale consideration and that notice was received by them on 25.08.2006. The defendants kept quite. 7. The crucial averment in the plaint, which has led to serious dispute between parties, is required to be extracted from the plaint: “d. The plaintiff hereby submits that he is ready and willing to perform his part of contract of sale, but the defendants did not choose to perform their part of contract of sale. The plaintiff is ready and willing to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.30,500/-into Court if necessary. As there is no other go, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dt. 17.01.2005. Hence, the suit.” 8. Both the defendants together filed a written statement and stated that the case set out by the plaintiff is incorrect and the alleged demands made by the plaintiff expressing readiness and willingness to pay the balance sale consideration etc., are all false. 17.01.2005. Hence, the suit.” 8. Both the defendants together filed a written statement and stated that the case set out by the plaintiff is incorrect and the alleged demands made by the plaintiff expressing readiness and willingness to pay the balance sale consideration etc., are all false. It is stated that both the defendants approached the plaintiff for a loan of Rs.1,00,000/-to meet their family expenses and the plaintiff had asked for security and plaintiff himself enquired about the suit schedule property and the defendants furnished him the particulars of the property and the plaintiff was not agreeable to lend the loan on a pronote and demanded the defendants and conceding to it they had executed the plaint mentioned registered agreement for sale. It is stated that the 2nd defendant himself had no absolute rights over the property during the lifetime of 1st defendant. In the above referred unavoidable circumstances alone, these defendants executed the agreement for sale and these defendants are law abiding citizens and they are ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, but it is the plaintiff who breached the contract. The important traversal made in the written statement at para No.4 is extracted here: “4. ….It is respectfully submitted by the defendants that “As per the Regd. Sale Agreement 16.01.2006 is the last date for the payment of balance of sale consideration, after that the said balance of sale consideration is to be paid with an interest at the rate of 24% Per Annum (p.a.). Here the plaintiff suppressed the said interest clause or fact, and that the plaintiff never came or approached the defendants as he stated in the plaint, and that the plaintiff is never ready and willing to perform his part of the contract as per the Regd. Sale Agreement. Evidently the plaintiff got issued legal notice dated 24.08.2006 i.e., not within one year period from the date of Regd. Sale Agreement (dt. 17.01.2005), he offered only balance sale consideration of Rs.30,500/-and he is not willing to pay and not ready to pay the interest as per the said Regd. Sale Agreement.”” 9. On these rival pleadings, learned trial Court framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 17-01-2005 by directing the defendants to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.30,500/-as prayed for? 2. Sale Agreement.”” 9. On these rival pleadings, learned trial Court framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 17-01-2005 by directing the defendants to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.30,500/-as prayed for? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit property? 3. To what relief?” 10. Plaintiff testified as PW.1 and examined the attestor to the agreement for sale as PW.2. The agreement for sale was exhibited as Ex.A.1. The legal notice that was got issued by plaintiff to the defendants is Ex.A.2 and its postal acknowledgments are Exs.A.3 and A.4. The 2nd defendant testified as DW.1. No documents were exhibited. On the evidence adduced and on hearing arguments of both counsel, learned trial Court recorded a finding that Ex.A.1 agreement for sale was validly entered into between both the parties. While arriving at that finding it considered the plea of the defendants about the nature of the transaction which the defendants contended that it was a debt that they borrowed from the plaintiff and they never intended to execute an agreement for sale but on the compulsion exerted by the plaintiff they had executed Ex.A.1. Having recorded a finding that Ex.A.1 was valid, it then went on to consider the main controversy between the parties which is about readiness and willingness on part of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contractual obligations. It had extensively recorded the principles of law governing this aspect of the matter and finally held that the plaintiff failed to perform his part of the contractual terms and that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Holding so, it dismissed the suit. 11. This very evidence was placed before the appellate Court and the first appellate Court on considering the grounds urged in the first appeal, framed the following points for its consideration: “(1) Whether the appellant is entitled for the relief of specific performance of Ex.A1 agreement of sale dated 17.01.2005, or in alternative, to get refund of rupees one lakh alleged to have been paid by him to the respondents? (2) Whether there exists any infirmity in the judgment of the trial court either in appreciating the facts of the case or in applying the established principles of law to the said facts as contended by the appellant herein, and if so, to what relief the appellant is entitled to?” 12. It stated that learned trial Court though recorded appropriate principles of law failed to follow them appropriately while applying the law to the facts available on record. It stated that from the evidence on record one could certainly say that plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Holding so, it set aside the impugned judgment of the trial Court and decreed the suit for specific performance. 13. The aggrieved defendants have come up with this second appeal. A learned judge of this Court admitted the second appeal on 18.06.2019 on the following substantial questions of law: “(a) Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract in view of his failure to offer to pay the agreed rate of interest @ 24% per annum from 01.07.2006 to the date of the registration? (b) Whether the lower appellate Court is right in not applying the settled proposition of law in a suit for specific performance, that even if it is lawful to do so, the Court can exercise its vested discretionary powers under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and refuse to grant such relief on sound and settled principles, more particularly when it would be grossly inequitable to enforce specific performance and would ultimately result in victimization of the alleged vendor? (c) Whether lower appellate Court is right in not considering the specific issue whether the plaintiff has established the existence of a valid agreement of sale and his readiness and willingness to execute the same, which are twin mandatory conditions for a suit for specific performance?” 14. Learned counsel on both sides submitted their arguments. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for appellants submits that the third point framed in this second appeal is not pressed and this Court could go ahead considering the finding of both the Courts below that Ex.A.1 agreement for sale is valid. Therefore, it is recorded that Ex.A.1 agreement for sale is a validly executed contract between parties. 15. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for appellants submits that the third point framed in this second appeal is not pressed and this Court could go ahead considering the finding of both the Courts below that Ex.A.1 agreement for sale is valid. Therefore, it is recorded that Ex.A.1 agreement for sale is a validly executed contract between parties. 15. The entire controversy is a few aspects of the matter. Ex.A.1 is a non-possessory registered agreement for sale executed by both the defendants in favour of the plaintiff. The total consideration was Rs.1,30,500/-. Under the agreement, a part of the sale consideration to a tune of Rs.1,00,000/-was paid by the plaintiff and was received by the defendants. The balance sale consideration was only Rs.30,500/-. This agreement was executed on 17.01.2005. Time frame agreed upon between parties by the agreement is one year which is mentioned as on or before 16.01.2006. Thus, on or before 16.01.2006 both parties to the agreement should see that the terms in the agreement are materialized and resulted in registration of the regular registered sale deed. That did not happen and therefore, the agreement landed in litigation. The terms of the agreement show that if the plaintiff failed to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.30,500/-on or before 16.01.2006, the plaintiff had to pay interest at the rate of Rs.2/-per month and obtained the registered sale deed bearing expenses for registration. All these facts are proved and appropriate findings are recorded by both the Courts below. It is on these admitted facts the legal questions have cropped up. 16. In this case the entire controversy revolves around the component of interest that is mentioned in the agreement for sale. As the terms of the agreement indicate that in the event of plaintiff’s failure to pay the balance sale consideration within the agreed one year, his obligation to pay is not only be the agreed Rs.30,500/-but also the interest calculated at the rate mentioned in the agreement as available on the date of payment. Thus, the interest component gets added to the balance sale consideration. Thus, the interest component gets added to the balance sale consideration. According to the defendants/ appellants from the time of notice that was got issued by the plaintiff under Ex.A.2 till the conclusion of the trial all throughout plaintiff failed to show his readiness and willingness to pay the component of interest and therefore, plaintiff should be called as one who has not been ready and willing to perform his part of the agreed contract. As against it, the contention of the learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff is that both in the Ex.A.2 notice as well as in the plaint as well as in his evidence, the plaintiff has always been expressing his readiness and willingness and at all times plaintiff has been mentioning the agreement for sale and therefore, plaintiff shall be held as one who has been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. 17. Order VI C.P.C. states the procedure for pleadings generally. Order VI Rule 9 C.P.C. is extracted here: “9. Effect of document to be stated:-Wherever the contents of any document are material, it shall be sufficient in any pleading to state the effect thereof as briefly as possible, without setting out the whole or any part thereof, unless the precise words of the document or any part thereof are material.” 18. Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short, ‘the Act’) provides law as to when a relief of specific performance could not be granted. Section 16(c) of the Act is relevant for consideration and therefore, the same is extracted here: “Sec.16 Personal bars to relief:-Specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person- (a) …… (b) …… (c) who fails to aver and prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him, other than terms the performance of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant. Explanation: For the purposes of Cl.(c),- (i) Where a contract involves the payment of money, it is not essential for the plaintiff to actually tender to the defendant or to deposit in Court any money except when so directed by the Court; (ii) the plaintiff must aver performance of, or readiness and willingness to perform, the contract according to its true construction.” 19. In Ousephe Varghese v. Joseph Aley, 1969 (2) SCC 539 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held at para No.9 as follows: “9. ......A suit for specific performance has to conform to the requirements prescribed in Forms 47 and 48 of the 1st Schedule in the Civil Procedure Code. In a suit for specific performance it is incumbent on the plaintiff not only to set out agreement on the basis of which he sues in all its details, he must go further and plead that he has applied to the defendant specifically to perform the agreement pleaded by him but the defendant has not done so. He must further plead that he has been and is still ready and willing to specifically perform his part of the agreement. Neither in the plaint nor at any subsequent stage of the suit the plaintiff has taken those pleas. As observed by this Court in Pt.Prem Raj v. D.L.F.Housing and Construction (P) Ltd., AIR 1968 SC 1355 , (1968) 3 SCR 648 it is well settled that in a suit for specific performance the plaintiff should allege that he is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and in the absence of such an allegation the suit is not maintainable.” 20. In Mukhtiar Singh v. Dharampal Singh, 1980 SCC Online ALL 766/1981 ALL LJ 119, the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad held at para No.10 as follows: “10. In the present case the appellants have made no averment at all in the plaint that they have been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract as stipulated by the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 21-09-70. Both the appellants Mukhtiar Singh and Dharampal entered witness box but none of them stated before the trial Court that they have always been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. In their testimony before the Trial court, they merely stated that they were ready to pay the money and get the sale deed executed on the date their statement was recorded. The statement is not sufficient to meet the requirement of law as discussed earlier. In these circumstances, it must be held that the plaintiff-appellants have failed to allege that they were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. In the absence of such an allegation their suit was bound to fail. The statement is not sufficient to meet the requirement of law as discussed earlier. In these circumstances, it must be held that the plaintiff-appellants have failed to allege that they were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. In the absence of such an allegation their suit was bound to fail. The trial court has rightly dismissed the appellants’ suit. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs.” 21. Learned counsel for appellants cited Kamal Kumar v. Premlata Joshi, (2019) 3 SCC 704 , wherein their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that while considering a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale, the Courts have also to see whether it will be equitable to grant the relief of specific performance to the plaintiff against the defendant in relation to suit property or it will cause any kind of hardship to the defendant and, if so, how and in what manner and the extent if such relief is eventually granted to the plaintiff. Further, the Courts have to see whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of any other alternative relief, namely, refund of earnest money, etc. and, if so, on what grounds. Their Lordships have been pleased to record that the above referred principles are part of the statutory requirements and these requirements have to be properly pleaded by the parties in their respective pleadings and be proved with the aid of evidence. It is in the light of these established legal principles, which are not any more debated in this case before this Court, the dispute has to be resolved now. 22. The following dates are to be noticed: 1. Date of agreement 17.01.2005. 2. Agreed time stipulated for completion of obligation 16.01.2006. 3. The date of Ex.A.2 notice is 24.08.2006. 4. The date of filing plaint is 29.12.2007. 23. It is undisputed that the balance sale consideration of Rs.30,500/-was not paid by the plaintiff to the defendants on or before the stipulated time 16.01.2006. At page No.2 of the plaint, there is an averment that within that one year time stipulated plaintiff approached the defendants on several occasions asking them to receive the balance sale consideration and register the sale deed and deliver possession of the property, but the defendants were postponing it on one pretext or other. At page No.2 of the plaint, there is an averment that within that one year time stipulated plaintiff approached the defendants on several occasions asking them to receive the balance sale consideration and register the sale deed and deliver possession of the property, but the defendants were postponing it on one pretext or other. This was merely repeated by PWs.1 and 2 in their evidence. Nowhere in the plaint mentioned the date on which and the place at which plaintiff met the defendants and asked them for completion of the contract. Thus, there was only a bald pleading and vague evidence. Despite the protest raised and traversal made in the written statement, there was no effort on part of the plaintiff during the course of trial to disclose to the Court the date, time and place where he really made demands. Be that as it may. The first verifiable occasion to see the positive move from the plaintiff is through Ex.A.2 notice dated 24.08.2006. Thus, nearly seven months after the expiry of stipulated one year, plaintiff got issued this legal notice to defendants. Para No.3 of this notice is extracted here: “Hence, you are hereby called upon to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.30,500/-from my client and register the notice schedule property in favour of my client and deliver the possession of the same to my client, immediately after receipt of this notice, failing which my client will be constrained to take appropriate legal action against you in a competent court of law in both civil and criminal, for which you will be held liable for all costs and consequences thereto.” 24. One could see from the extracted paragraph that the plaintiff was demanding the defendants to receive only Rs.30,500/-towards balance sale consideration and register the sale deed. Point of attention is that this notice has not disclosed the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff in paying the agreed rate of interest along with the remaining balance sale consideration, which is stipulated in the agreement for sale. According to plaintiff, despite the above notice, there was silence on part of the defendants and they did not come forward to oblige the demands made in the notice. It was in those circumstances, plaintiff has to sue the defendants. Then plaintiff filed the suit on 29.12.2007 and finally, the plaint was registered on 08.02.2008. According to plaintiff, despite the above notice, there was silence on part of the defendants and they did not come forward to oblige the demands made in the notice. It was in those circumstances, plaintiff has to sue the defendants. Then plaintiff filed the suit on 29.12.2007 and finally, the plaint was registered on 08.02.2008. These dates are borne by record and are admitted to be correct by both sides. The date of presentation of plaint on 29.12.2007 indicates that it was one year four months (16 months) after Ex.A.2 notice only the plaintiff sued the defendants. Para iii (c) and (d) in the plaint are extracted here: “c. Finally on 24.08.2006 the plaintiff got issued registered legal notice to the defendants 1 and 2 demanding them to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.30,500/-and register the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. But the defendants received the said legal notice on 25.08.2006 and kept quite. d. The plaintiff hereby submits that he is ready and willing to perform his part of contract of sale, but the defendants did not choose to perform their part of contract of sale. The plaintiff is ready and willing to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.30,500/-into Court if necessary. As there is no other go, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dt. 17.01.2005. Hence, the suit.” 25. The above averments in the plaint also shows conspicuous absence of relevant averment on part of the plaintiff that he was ready and willing to pay the interest that accrued till then and his readiness and willingness to pay that interest component along with balance sale consideration. In the earlier paragraphs of this judgment, relief prayed in the suit is already extracted. One would at once notice that in the relief portion also plaintiff was not expressing his readiness and willingness to pay the interest component along with the balance sale consideration. On the other hand, he was asking the Court that he would pay only that Rs.30,500/-and asked the Court to command the defendants to execute the sale deed. Thus, his main intention is clear that he is not prepared to pay the component of interest. 26. On the other hand, he was asking the Court that he would pay only that Rs.30,500/-and asked the Court to command the defendants to execute the sale deed. Thus, his main intention is clear that he is not prepared to pay the component of interest. 26. In response to that plaint, the written statement filed by the defendants categorically contested the claim of the plaintiff on the principal ground that plaintiff was not coming forward to pay the interest component and therefore, plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform the contractual obligations. Despite the fact that the plaintiff had noticed these traversals and the defence raised, the evidence adduced at the trial through plaintiff as PW.1 in his examination in chief indicates a mere repetition of averments in the plaint with conspicuous omission to swear on oath and say about his readiness and willingness to pay the interest component. Be it noted, all these omissions were pointed out to the witness during cross-examination. He admitted these omissions all throughout. Yet he did not make a positive statement that he is ready and willing to pay the interest component also. Now, it is on this evidence the trial Court concluded that plaintiff could not be said to be ready and willing to discharge his part of contractual obligations. In this appeal learned counsel for respondent/ plaintiff submits that plaint need not incorporate all the terms of the agreement. The agreement in Ex.A.1 has no clause of cancellation of agreement on failure of payment of balance sale consideration. The evidence acknowledged by the plaintiff in paying the balance sale consideration is never questioned. That the plaintiff having paid nearly 2/3rd of the sale consideration is eager to have his transaction materialized. Never the plaintiff or his witness stated that plaintiff denies to pay the agreed rate of interest. Now, these contentions when processed through the law laid down in the statute and laid down in the precedent, which is extracted above, make this Court to understand that these submissions are against the terms of contract and the principles of law. As rightly stated by the learned counsel for appellants that the sale consideration should be first understood as the one that is mentioned in the agreement for sale. When the agreement for sale contains other stipulations complying with those stipulations is the statutory need. As rightly stated by the learned counsel for appellants that the sale consideration should be first understood as the one that is mentioned in the agreement for sale. When the agreement for sale contains other stipulations complying with those stipulations is the statutory need. One of the stipulations is enlargement of sale consideration by way of addition of interest when the plaintiff failed to pay the balance sale consideration within the stipulated time. When once the plaintiff failed to pay the agreed balance sale consideration within the stipulated one year, then his readiness and willingness to pay the remaining sale consideration should stand included the additional interest. As long as there is total failure to make any averment in Ex.A.2 notice, in the plaint and in the evidence about plaintiff’s readiness and willingness to pay the enlarged sale consideration, this Court must hold that the trial Court is right and the conclusions reached by the appellate Court are incorrect and against law. In the considered opinion of this Court by the time the suit was filed what remained to be fulfilled on part of the plaintiff included the balance of Rs.30,500/-and interest calculated at the rate of Rs.2/-per month. Since the notice as well as the plaint and the evidence of PW.1 do not show any inclination on part of the plaintiff to pay that interest component, which is now part of the balance sale consideration, he shall be held to have breached the contract and violated the principles of law enunciated in the earlier paragraphs of this judgment. In such view of the matter, the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court are correct. The first appellate Court simply went on to say that the time was not the essence of the contract and mere omission to mention the interest component cannot lead to unpleasant consequence to plaintiff are all incorrect and against law and cannot be supported. Therefore, granting of primary relief for specific performance resorted to by the first appellate Court cannot be approved since the same is against law. Hence, both the points are answered against the plaintiff/respondent and in favour of the appellants/defendants. 27. Therefore, granting of primary relief for specific performance resorted to by the first appellate Court cannot be approved since the same is against law. Hence, both the points are answered against the plaintiff/respondent and in favour of the appellants/defendants. 27. Since the amended plaint includes refund of sale consideration along with interest and since nothing is stated before this Court by the appellant as to why the amount received by the appellants could not be refunded to the plaintiff along with 12% interest per annum and since the defendants/appellants all throughout held possession of their property as well as Rs.1,00,000/-received by them from the plaintiff, it is incumbent on their part to refund the amount along with 12% interest to the plaintiff. 28. Therefore, the first appellate Court’s judgment in granting the primary relief of specific performance shall be set aside and it shall be modified by granting the alternative relief of refund of money with 12% interest per annum. As a consequence, the suit stands decreed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and against the defendants directing the defendants to pay Rs.1,00,000/-along with 12% interest per annum from the date of suit till the date of this judgment and with 6% interest per annum till actual payment. 29. With the above modification, the Second Appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.