JUDGMENT : SANJEEV KUMAR, J. 1. The instant first appeal by the appellant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2021 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Budgam [“the trial Court”] in a suit for specific performance and injunction titled Mehboob Ali Khan vs. Ghulam Hyder Malla and Another. 2. Before proceeding ahead to deal with the grounds of challenge to the impugned judgment and decree as urged by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, it would be appropriate to advert to few relevant facts. 3. Respondent No. 1 [plaintiff in the suit] filed a civil suit for specific performance of contract and permanent prohibitory injunction against the appellant and respondent No. 2. [“the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the suit”] in respect of land measuring 1 kanal 10 marlas under survey No. 620 and land measuring 14 marlas falling in survey No. 582 situated at village Dandoosa Tehsil and District Budgam [“the suit land”]. As is averred by the plaintiff in the suit, the suit land was offered for sale to the plaintiff by defendant No. 1 in the month of November, 2016 and an agreement to sell was executed between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1. On the asking of the defendant No. 1, the plaintiff paid the entire sale consideration of Rs. 34,95,000/- which included a sum of Rs. 9,45,000/- in respect of land measuring 14 marlas falling under survey No. 582. The plaintiff pleaded that after having paid the entire sale consideration, he approached the defendants to execute a proper sale deed and deliver possession of the suit land but the defendants refused and therefore, the cause of action to file the suit. The plaintiff has made reference to a criminal complaint filed against the defendants for having assaulted and threatening him of dire consequences in case he persists for execution of the sale deed or approaches the court of law for taking legal remedy. It is in this backdrop the plaintiff prayed for a decree of specific performance of contract and for delivery of the possession of the suit land. 4. On being put on notice, the defendants filed their written statement. The allegations made in the plaint were refuted and the execution of the document “agreement to sell” in respect of the suit land was flatly denied. 4. On being put on notice, the defendants filed their written statement. The allegations made in the plaint were refuted and the execution of the document “agreement to sell” in respect of the suit land was flatly denied. The defendants, as is apparent from Para 6 of the written statement, did not specifically deny having received the amount through cheques but submitted that the said amount received through cheques from the plaintiff was not in relation to any transaction of sale of land as was claimed by the plaintiff. The defendants even went to the extent of suggesting that the plaintiff, if aggrieved, should file a suit for recovery of money and that the suit for specific performance of contract was not maintainable. It seems that later on, on the application of the plaintiff, Javid Ahmed, who was alleged to be the owner of 14 marlas of land under survey No. 582 in respect of which defendant No. 2 had also executed the agreement to sell, was arrayed as party defendant No. 3. In his written statement filed before the trial court, the defendant No. 3 denied having authorized defendants No. 1 and 2 to execute any agreement to sell in respect of land measuring 14 malras or to receive any sale consideration in respect thereof from the plaintiff. Subsequently, vide order dated 08.08.2018, defendant no. 3 (Javid Ahmed) came to be deleted from the array of defendants. Be that as it is, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed following issues: 1. Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD 2. Whether the plaintiff has not disclosed the cause of action and suit is liable to be dismissed on that count? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has not valued the suit properly. If so, what is its effect on the suit? OPD 4. Whether the defendant no. 1 has executed an agreement to sell on 11.11.2016 in favour of the plaintiff with respect to 1 kanal 10 marla of land comprising under survey no. 620, khewat No. 15, khata No. 33, situated at Dandoosa Tehsil and District Budgam, for a consideration of Rs. 25,50,000? OPD 5. Whether there has been an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant under which the defendants have agreed to sell 14 marlas of land comprising under survey no. 620, khewat No. 15, khata No. 33, situated at Dandoosa Tehsil and District Budgam, for a consideration of Rs. 25,50,000? OPD 5. Whether there has been an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant under which the defendants have agreed to sell 14 marlas of land comprising under survey no. 582, situated at Dandoosa belonging to Javid Ahmad, for a consideration of Rs. 9,45,000 and 7 malras of land belonging to plaintiff? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has already paid consideration of Rs. 34,95,000 to the defendants? OPP 7. Whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to purchase the suit land as per agreed terms and conditions? OPP 8. Relief to which the plaintiff is entitled? OPP 5. Issues Nos. 1, 2 and 3, which were treated as preliminary issues, were decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants by the trial Court vide order dated 04.06.2018. The issue no. 5 was also deleted vide order dated 08.08.2018 in view of deletion of defendant no. 3, Javid Ahmed from the array of defendants. The plaintiff was called upon to adduce evidence to prove the issues, the onus whereof was on him. 6. The plaintiff, besides entering the witness box himself, also examined PW-2 Zakir Hussain, PW-3 Mushtaq Ali Bhat, PW-4 Syed Sajjad Hususain Geelani and PW-5 Khursheed Ahmed Dar, whereas the defendants produced Gulzar Ahmad Malik, Ghulam Hassan Dar, Bashir Ahmed Malla, Mohd. Qasim Malla as their witnesses besides defendant No. 1 appearing as his own witness. 7. On appreciation of evidence and after hearing the learned counsel on both sides, the trial Court decided issue No. 4 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. The trial Court, on the basis of evidence on record, concluded that plaintiff had succeeded in proving the execution of the agreement to sell as also the sale consideration of Rs. 34,95,000/- paid to defendant No. 1 through his son, the defendant No. 2. The trial Court also concluded that defendants had failed to produce any cogent evidence in rebuttal to disprove the agreement to sell to which defendant No. 1 was a party. The trial Court also took note of the evasive denial by the defendant no. 1 to the statement made in Para 6 of the plaint which pertained to payment to sale consideration by the plaintiff to the defendant No. 2 on the asking of defendant no. The trial Court also took note of the evasive denial by the defendant no. 1 to the statement made in Para 6 of the plaint which pertained to payment to sale consideration by the plaintiff to the defendant No. 2 on the asking of defendant no. 1 and concluded that the evasive denial of the defendant No. 1 to the specific averment made in Para 6 of the plaint was no substitute of the proof which the defendant No. 1 was required to bring on record to rebut the specific averment made in Para 6. On the similar lines, the trial Court held issue No. 6 also proved in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. 8. With regard to issue No. 7, the trial Court concluded that upon payment of entire sale consideration, the plaintiff had been approaching the defendants for execution of the sale deed and, therefore, there was strong presumption that the plaintiff was all along ready and willing to purchase the suit land and it was defendant no. 1 who was to complete the formalities and execute the sale deed. The trial Court also adverted to the specific plea of the plaintiff in the plaint that he was ready to purchase the suit land but it was defendant no. 1 who had flatly refused to execute the sale deed. Accordingly, the trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff to the extent of land measuring 1 kanal 10 marlas under survey No. 620 and directed defendant No. 1 to execute a proper sale deed in favour of the plaintiff or in the alternative return the sale consideration at the prevailing market rate. The plaintiff, however, was given a liberty to file a recovery suit for an amount of Rs. 9,45,000/- in respect of land measuring 14 marlas under survey no. 582 which was admittedly proved to be owned by the deleted defendant, Javid Ahmed. 9. It may be worthwhile to note that the plaintiff has accepted the judgment and decree and has not filed any appeal. It is the defendant No. 1 who alone has come up in appeal. 10. 582 which was admittedly proved to be owned by the deleted defendant, Javid Ahmed. 9. It may be worthwhile to note that the plaintiff has accepted the judgment and decree and has not filed any appeal. It is the defendant No. 1 who alone has come up in appeal. 10. The impugned judgment and decree has been assailed by the defendant No. 1 [“the appellant herein”] inter-alia on the following grounds: (i) That the impugned judgment and decree does not qualify to be called a judgment and decree in terms of Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, as it does not determine conclusively the rights of the parties with regard to matter in controversy in the suit. (ii) That the suit filed by the plaintiff is not in prescribed format, as provided in Appendix-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is argued that form Nos. 47 and 48 of the Appendix-A provides the manner in which a suit for specific performance of contract has to be presented before the Court. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon’ble of Supreme Court in the case of Church of Christ Charitable Trust vs. M/s Ponnimman Educational Trust (Civil Appeal No. 4841 of 2012 decided on 03.07.2012). (iii) That the judgment and decree is bad in law, inasmuch as, the trial Court in a suit for specific performance of contract could not have directed the refund of sale consideration to be calculated at the market value of the suit property, and that the trial Court could have at the most directed refund of the consideration amount along with interest at the prevailing bank rates. (iv) That the trial Court has failed to appreciate the provisions of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, as interpreted by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Surinder Kour vs. Bahadur Singh, (2019) 8 SCC 575 . The relief of specific performance is discretionary in nature and where the Court is of the opinion that in the given circumstances, it is inequitable to enforce specific performance, the Court can refuse to grant such discretionary relief. 11. Having head learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, it needs to be noticed at the outset that the appellant has not challenged the impugned decree and judgment passed by the trial Court on merits. 11. Having head learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, it needs to be noticed at the outset that the appellant has not challenged the impugned decree and judgment passed by the trial Court on merits. The appellant does not dispute that on the basis of evidence on record, the trial Court has concluded that the plaintiff has succeeded in proving the execution of the agreement to sell by defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff nor does the defendant No. 1 disputes that his son, the defendant No. 2, received a sum of Rs. 34,95,000/- through cheques and cash from the plaintiff. The bald plea taken by the defendants in the written statement is that the amount, whatever received by defendant No. 2, was not related to any transaction of sale in respect of the suit property. The appreciation of evidence on record by the trial Court is not seriously disputed. Once issue No. 4 is held proved by the trial Court and the same is not seriously disputed by defendant No. 1, it is a foregone conclusion that the defendant No. 1 executed the agreement to sell in respect of the suit property for transferring the same by way of sale for a total consideration of Rs. 34,95,000. The amount was transferred in the account of defendant No. 2 on the asking of defendant No. 1. Out of the total sale consideration received by the defendants, an amount of Rs. 9,45,000/- was in respect of 14 marlas of land owned by the deleted defendant, Javid Ahmed. Since defendant No. 1 could not prove, by leading any evidence, that the land measuring 1 kanal 10 marla comprised under survey No. 620 khewat No. 15 and khata no. 33 was not owned and possessed by him, as such, the trial Court committed no illegality in directing the defendant No. 1 to execute the formal deed of sale in respect of the said land. True it is that defendant No. 1 had taken a plea that even the said land was recorded in the name of his sister but nothing was brought on record to substantiate the aforesaid averment. 12. True it is that defendant No. 1 had taken a plea that even the said land was recorded in the name of his sister but nothing was brought on record to substantiate the aforesaid averment. 12. Be that as it may, the trial Court did keep that in mind and in the alternative decreed the suit for refund of the consideration amount in respect of the suit land measuring 1 kanal 10 marla to be determined at the prevailing market rate. 13. Viewed from any angle, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. 14. Before I conclude, I deem it appropriate to deal with the grounds of challenge taken by the defendant No. 1 to assail the impugned judgment and decree. 15. The argument of Mr. Ratanpuri, learned counsel for the appellant, that the judgment and decree does not qualify to be a decree in terms of Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, is not tenable in law. From bare reading of Section 2(2) it clearly transpires that a decree means formal expression of an adjudication which conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any matters in controversy. In the instant case the suit for specific performance was in respect of two parcels of land, one belonging to the defendant No. 1 and other belonging to deleted defendant-Javid Ahmad. The Court has decreed the suit in respect of suit land belonging to the defendant No. 1. The decree, therefore, adjudicates and conclusively determines the rights of the parties in respect of land measuring one kanal and ten marlas falling under Survey No. 620, which is proved to be land owned and possessed by the defendant No. 1. It is not thus necessary that the decree must determine the rights of the parties with regard to all matters in controversy, rather it could be either with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy. The plain reading of Section 2(2) only suggests like this. 16. The plea of the learned counsel for the appellant that trial Court could not have, in the decree, provided in the alternative for return of the sale consideration, to be determined at the present prevalent market value of the land, may have some substance. The plain reading of Section 2(2) only suggests like this. 16. The plea of the learned counsel for the appellant that trial Court could not have, in the decree, provided in the alternative for return of the sale consideration, to be determined at the present prevalent market value of the land, may have some substance. In that, the trial Court has again left it for the Executing Court to determine the present prevailing market rate of the land in question. Such function of adjudication cannot be left by the trial Court to be determined by the Executing Court. There is no doubt with regard to the fact that before the Executing Court, there would be serious dispute as to the prevailing market value of the land. Viewed thus, the direction could be construed to be vague in nature and, therefore, may not be adjudication, determining the rights of the parties conclusively with regard to the sale consideration to be returned by the defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff. To this extent, I agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned judgment and decree deserves to be modified. 17. The other argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the plaint was not filed as per Form Nos. 47 and 48 of Appendix-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, suffice it to say that from a plain reading of the plaint, it clearly transpires that the plaint meets all the requirements as contained in Form No. 47 and 48 of the Appendix-A and, therefore, the suit cannot be thrown out merely on the ground that the plaint is not strictly as per Form Nos. 47 and 48 of the Appendix-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. 18. Viewed thus, the appeal is partly allowed and the judgment and decree stands modified in the following manner: “The suit of the plaintiff is decree in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant No. 1 and, accordingly, the defendant No. 1 is directed to execute a proper sale deed with respect to land measuring 1 kanal 10 marlas falling under survey No. 620, Khewat No. 15, Khata No. 33 situated at village Dandoosa, Tehsil and District Budgam, owned and possessed by defendant No. 1, in terms of agreement to sell dated 11.11.2016 or, in the alternative, defendant nos. 1 and 2 shall either jointly or severally return the sale consideration of Rs. 25,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, from the date the amount has been paid to the defendant No. 2, till same is actually returned to the plaintiff.” 19. The decree of the trial Court in respect of land measuring 14 marlas under Survey No. 582 situated at village Dandoosa Tehsil and District Budgam, owned and possessed by Javid Ahmad is kept intact and the plaintiff would be at liberty to recover the amount of Rs. 9,45,000/- by filing a recovery suit. This portion of the decree is not touched for the reason that there is no challenge thrown to it by the plaintiff.” 20. The parties shall bear the cost of appeal. Office to draw a decree sheet in accordance with the judgment.