JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. The captioned second appeal is filed by unsuccessful defendants who have questioned the concurrent findings of the Courts below wherein plaintiff's suit for specific performance of contract based on an agreement to sell dtd. 19/1/2005 is held to be proved and decreed by both the Courts. 2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court. 3. The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking enforcement of an agreement dtd. 19/1/2005. Plaintiff claims that defendants offered to sell a portion of property bearing Sy.No.457/6. Plaintiff has specifically pleaded that out of the said survey number, a portion measuring 30x100 feet was agreed to be sold by the defendants. Plaintiff has specifically pleaded that this property was originally owned by one Ningegowda who was also called as Ninga. The said original owner secured a conversion order and he was in exclusive possession till his death and after his death, his wife Ningamma inherited the properties. Plaintiff therefore claimed that Ningamma along with her family members were in need of money and therefore, for legal necessity offered to sell the suit schedule property. Plaintiff claimed that he accepted the offer and sale consideration was arrived at Rs.2,25,000.00 and pursuant to agreement to sell dtd. 19/1/2005, plaintiff claimed that he has tendered Rs.1,75,000.00 as an advance in presence of witnesses. The present suit is filed alleging that though plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract, defendants have deliberately not come forward to perform their part of contract and therefore, a legal notice was also issued on 8/12/2006 calling upon defendants to complete the transaction by executing sale deed. Plaintiff has alleged that defendants have even evaded the notice sent by him. 4. Defendants who were initially placed exparte filed miscellaneous petition and were permitted to contest the suit. After seeking leave, the defendants filed written statement on 12/2/2018. Defendants contended that they were in need of loan to the tune of Rs.1,00,000.00 and therefore, the present agreement to sell is executed only as a security and they had no intention to sell the property. After seeking leave, the defendants filed written statement on 12/2/2018. Defendants contended that they were in need of loan to the tune of Rs.1,00,000.00 and therefore, the present agreement to sell is executed only as a security and they had no intention to sell the property. The defendants also claimed that first defendant and his father Ningegowda for legal necessity borrowed loan of Rs.20,000.00 from one M.Chandru and executed a mortgage deed on 3/3/1994 and therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit by contending that the family of defendants had no intention to sell the property and claimed that the money lent by plaintiff was a loan transaction and the document on which the present suit is filed was offered and executed only by way of a security. 5. Based on rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed, in all, five issues and plaintiff to substantiate his claim that defendants have offered to sell the suit property and have received Rs.1,75,000.00 as advance sale consideration, examined himself as PW.1 and also examined two witnesses to agreement of sale which is marked as Ex.P-1. To counter the evidence of plaintiffs, defendants have also let in oral evidence of second defendant and adduced documentary evidence vide Exs.D-1 to D-5. 6. Trial Court having examined oral and documentary evidence answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative while issue No.3 was answered in the negative and against defendants. Trial Court having assessed oral evidence of plaintiff who is examined as PW.1 and also oral evidence of PWs.2 and 3 who are witnesses to the agreement of sale held that plaintiff has succeeded in proving the suit agreement dtd. 19/1/2005 and has also succeeded in proving that he has paid an advance amount of Rs.1,75,000.00 and was ever ready and willing to perform his part of contract. While answering issue No.3, Trial Court took strong exceptions to the stand taken by the defendants in the present case on hand. Trial Court referring to Exs.D-1 to D-4 coupled with Ex.D-5 which is the encumbrance certificate produced by plaintiff has held that as on 2005, the property was not at all encumbered. Referring to Ex.P-5, which is encumbrance certificate issued on 1/12/2006, Trial Court found that there was no encumbrance over the suit schedule property as on 2005. Trial Court referring to Exs.D-1 to D-4 coupled with Ex.D-5 which is the encumbrance certificate produced by plaintiff has held that as on 2005, the property was not at all encumbered. Referring to Ex.P-5, which is encumbrance certificate issued on 1/12/2006, Trial Court found that there was no encumbrance over the suit schedule property as on 2005. It is in this background, the defence set up by defendants that the property was subject matter of mortgage transaction was not accepted by the Trial Court. The alternate defence raised by the defendants that the present transaction was one for security for having availed hand loan and there was no intention on the part of defendants' family to alienate the suit schedule property was also not accepted by the Trial Court. 7. The Trial Court referring to evidence of PWs.2 and 3 who are witnesses to the suit agreement found that the plaintiff has succeeded in substantiating his claim that the present transaction is a sale transaction and not loan transaction as alleged by defendants. Trial Court was of the view that both witnesses have withstood the test of cross- examination and nothing material is elicited in cross- examination to disbelieve the evidence of PWs.2 and 3. The Trial Court has taken strong exception to the manner in which the defendants have taken inconsistent defences while defending the suit. The Trial Court found that defendants have unfortunately gone to the extent of even denying the advance sale consideration received by him. If defendants have received a sum of Rs.1,00,000.00 by way of hand loan, they could not have out-rightly denied the very receipt of Rs.1,75,000.00 under the suit agreement. 8. Exercising judicial discretion, Trial Court was of the view that this is a fit case to grant discretionary relief of specific performance of contract. Trial Court held that suit agreement is proved and advance sale consideration of Rs.1,75,000.00 out of Rs.2,25,000.00 is already paid by the plaintiff and therefore, proceeded to decree the suit. 9. Defendants feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court. 10. The Appellate Court has independently assessed oral and documentary evidence. Appellate Court referring to evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 and the recitals in the suit agreement vide Ex.P-1 was also of the view that the plaintiff has succeeded in proving the due execution of suit agreement. 10. The Appellate Court has independently assessed oral and documentary evidence. Appellate Court referring to evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 and the recitals in the suit agreement vide Ex.P-1 was also of the view that the plaintiff has succeeded in proving the due execution of suit agreement. Referring to cross-examination of PWs.2 and 3, Appellate Court was also of the view that plaintiff has succeeded in establishing that defendants have come forward and have offered to sell the suit property for legal necessity. Appellate Court was of the view that there was absolutely no rebuttal evidence to counter the claim of plaintiff that it is an out and out sale transaction and not loan transaction as alleged by the defendants. Appellate Court was also of the view that slender evidence that is adduced by the defendants which is in the form of oral evidence would not outweigh the documentary evidence led by the plaintiff. 11. Insofar as the contention of the defendants that the property was already encumbered and therefore, defendants had no occasion to deal with the property in question was also negatived by the Appellate Court. Appellate Court also referring to Ex.D-4 which is an encumbrance certificate relied by defendants for the period 1/10/2003 to 23/3/2018 found that there was absolutely no encumbrance over the suit schedule property. Therefore, the defence set up by the defendants that suit schedule property was subject matter of mortgage transaction was also not accepted by the Appellate Court. Referring to cross-examination of DW.1, Appellate Court also held that defendants have failed to prove that the suit schedule property was mortgaged to one Chandru for a sum of Rs.20,000.00. On these set of reasonings, the Appellate Court was not inclined to interfere with the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Court. These concurrent findings are under challenge. 12. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants. Perused the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. 13. Learned Senior Counsel reiterating the grounds would contend that the entire approach adopted by the Courts below is palpably erroneous and the conclusion recorded by the Courts below in holding that agreement stands proved suffers from serious infirmities and these conclusions recorded by both the Courts is contrary to rebuttal evidence let in by defendants. 13. Learned Senior Counsel reiterating the grounds would contend that the entire approach adopted by the Courts below is palpably erroneous and the conclusion recorded by the Courts below in holding that agreement stands proved suffers from serious infirmities and these conclusions recorded by both the Courts is contrary to rebuttal evidence let in by defendants. He would contend that the rebuttal evidence would clearly establish that the present transaction was a loan transaction and the parties had no intention to alienate the suit property as claimed by the plaintiff. He would also vehemently argue and contend that the pleading and materials would not satisfy the requisite conditions enumerated under Sec. 16(c) of Specific Relief Act, 1963 and therefore, he would contend that discretion exercised by both the Courts in granting specific performance of contract suffers from perversity and therefore, substantial question of law would arise for consideration in that regard. He would contend that Appellate Court being final fact finding authority has not properly appreciated the entire evidence on record. On these set of grounds, he would contend that this is a fit case to admit and requires reconsideration at the hands of this Court. 14. Plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking enforcement of contract of a sale agreement dtd. 19/1/2005. Plaintiff claims that defendants have executed an agreement by receiving an advance sale consideration of Rs.1,75,000.00 out of total Rs.2,25,000.00. Plaintiff also claimed that he was ever ready and willing to perform his part of contract while defendants went on postponing and therefore, there is breach on the part of defendants in not completing the transaction by receiving the balance amount of Rs.50,000.00. Both the Courts have concurrently held that plaintiff has succeeded in proving that it was a sale transaction and sum of Rs.1,75,000.00 was paid to pursuant to agreement to sell executed on 19/1/2005 vide Ex.P-1. Both the Courts have concurrently held that plaintiff has succeeded in establishing his readiness and willingness. Both the Courts have concurrently held that defendants have failed to substantiate their defence that it was a loan transaction and defendants had no occasion to alienate the suit schedule property. The second line of defence that there was a mortgage transaction between defendants and one Chandru and since the property was already encumbered, plaintiff is not entitled for discretionary relief of specific performance was also not entertained by both the Courts below. The second line of defence that there was a mortgage transaction between defendants and one Chandru and since the property was already encumbered, plaintiff is not entitled for discretionary relief of specific performance was also not entertained by both the Courts below. 15. The relief of specific performance is discretionary and is governed by sound judicial principles. The grant of relief is at the discretion of the Court. The Court, if all the ingredients are available, is bound to exercise discretion and direct specific performance unless it should be what is called highly unreasonable to do so. In exercising discretion, the Court should take into account the circumstances of the case, the conduct of parties and their respective interest under the contract. It is also a trite law that as an ordinary rule, specific performance should be granted and has to be denied only when equitable considerations show that damage would constitute an adequate relief. In the present case, if discretionary relief of specific performance is declined, it is the plaintiff who would be put to irreparable loss and denial of specific performance of contract would inflict more injury on the plaintiff than on the defendants. 16. If concurrent findings are recorded by both the Courts below that suit agreement is proved and if readiness and willingness is also held in favour of plaintiff by both the Courts, then it is a trite law that this Court cannot revisit and reassess the entire evidence on record under Sec. 100 of CPC. Such a recourse is not permissible. 17. No substantial question of law would arise for consideration. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.