JUDGMENT : H.P. Sandesh, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also the learned counsel for the respondents. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding in granting the relief of specific performance in O.S.No.381/2013 and in R.A.No.44/2015. 2. The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Trial Court, in order to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court. 3. The factual matrix of case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court that defendant entered into agreement dated 28.05.2012 with the plaintiff to sell the suit schedule property for a sale consideration of Rs.2,89,000/-and paid earnest money of Rs.2,00,000/- and balance amount payable at the time of registering the document. It also his case that he is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. The defendant has appeared and filed written statement contending that the plaintiff is a professional money lender and he advanced the money to the several persons. They have only borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- and executed agreement of sale as security for the said amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and the land value of the said property is more than Rs.20,00,000/- and contended that they are ready to pay the principle amount together with interest in which the Court directs to pay the plaintiff. The suit schedule properties are very valuable land and with an intention to grab the suit schedule properties for lower price, filed a suit for the relief of specific performance. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues : (1) Whether the plaintiff proves that, defendants entered into agreement with him to sell suit schedule properties for consideration of Rs.2,89,000/-? (2) Whether the plaintiff further proves that defendants received Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff as earnest money and executed registered agreement of sale on 28.05.2012? (3) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract? (4) Whether the defendant further proves that, the plaintiff is professional moneylender? (5) Whether the defendants further prove that, they have borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- and executed agreement of sale security? (6) Whether the plaintiff entitles for the relief’s sought? (7) What order or decree? 4. The Trial Court has given an opportunity to substantiate their case. (4) Whether the defendant further proves that, the plaintiff is professional moneylender? (5) Whether the defendants further prove that, they have borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- and executed agreement of sale security? (6) Whether the plaintiff entitles for the relief’s sought? (7) What order or decree? 4. The Trial Court has given an opportunity to substantiate their case. The plaintiff himself has examined as PW1 and also examined three witnesses as PW2 to PW4 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. On the other hand, the defendant in order substantiate his defense, examined himself as DW1 and got marked the document Ex.D1 and Ex.D2. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence available on record comes to the conclusion that there is a registered sale agreement and the same was executed for the sale of the property and received earnest money of Rs.2,00,000/- and balance was payable at the time of registration and also comes to the conclusion that he is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract and answered the issue Nos.1 to 3 as affirmative and the defense of the defendant has not been accepted and ordered for the relief of specific performance. Having considered the market value per acre Rs.90,000/- calculated the total sale consideration of land as against the agreed sale consideration of Rs.2,89,000/- and directed to pay the balance amount out of Rs.4,08,000/-. Whenever they intimate the plaintiff that he obtained the permission from the appointing authority. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, an appeal is filed by the defendant in R.A.No.44/2015. The First Appellate Court having considered the grounds urged in the appeal, formulated the point whether the judgment and decree is illegal, perverse and opposed to law, facts and probabilities of the case. The First Appellate Court having re-assessed the material available on record, answered the point as negative and dismissed the appeal. However, modified the judgment of the Trial Court in coming to the conclusion that the findings of the Trial Court is incorrect reason that the defendants have resisted the claim of the plaintiff on false ground. Hence, they have not entitled for additional amount as granted by the Trial Court and directed to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by receiving the balance consideration of Rs.89,000/- and the plaintiff shall deposit the said amount before the Trial Court within two months. Hence, they have not entitled for additional amount as granted by the Trial Court and directed to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by receiving the balance consideration of Rs.89,000/- and the plaintiff shall deposit the said amount before the Trial Court within two months. Being aggrieved both the judgments, the present second appeal is filed before this Court. The grounds which have been urged in the second appeal that both the Courts have committed an error in appreciating both oral and documentary evidence available on record and conclusion drawn by the trial Judge answering issue Nos.4 and 5 as negative is contrary to the material available on record and ought to have answered the same as affirmative and conclusion drawn by the trial Judge is erroneous. Both the Courts fail to take note of the fact that the respondent is a resident of Hulimangala village, Lakkuru Hobli, Malur Taluk, Kolar District and appellants are the residents of Honagahalli Village, B.G.Pura Hobli, Malavalli Taluk, Malavalli. The appellants have availed loan and not agreed to sell the property. The document has been executed only as security to pay the said loan. Both the Courts fail to take note of the contents of the document Ex.D2-sale agreement, which is the undisputed document. The value of the suit schedule property is more than Rs.20,00,000/- per acre, as per the value of the property which is near the suit property. The main contention of the appellant in the appeal particularly in paragraph No.15 that both the Courts fail to exercise the discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act. Whenever the contract become unequivocal, there is unfair advantage, the Court can decline the specific relief of contract. The appellant drawn the attention to the valuation furnished by the respondent witnesses. In terms of the said evidence itself that 1 acre market value is Rs.90,000/-. If the properties are situated at Kaggalipura the suit schedule properties measures 4.23 guntas and as per the present market value per acre is more than Rs.15,00,000/-. Even if it is computed the market value that of the suit schedule properties, it is valued Rs.4,08,000/- and whereas the agreement is only for Rs.2,89,000/-. The facts pleaded by the Trial Court and also the answer elicited from the mouth of witnesses has not been properly appreciated. Even if it is computed the market value that of the suit schedule properties, it is valued Rs.4,08,000/- and whereas the agreement is only for Rs.2,89,000/-. The facts pleaded by the Trial Court and also the answer elicited from the mouth of witnesses has not been properly appreciated. Even approximate value of the suit schedule properties are Rs.4,08,000/- as per the Trial Court judgment and directed to pay balance amount of Rs.1,19,000/- and the same also reversed by the First Appellate Court without considering the factual aspects of the case. This Court having considered the grounds urged in the second appeal. At the time of admission, this Court considered the material on record and framed the following substantial question of law : “Whether the Courts below have considered the mandate under Section 20 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 in the light of the evidence on record?” 5. The counsel appearing for the appellants during the course of his argument would vehemently contend that admittedly the property is 4 acre 33 guntas as allegedly agreed to sell the property. The Trial Court also comes to the conclusion that even admitted value per acre is Rs.90,000/- and ordered to pay the sale consideration in terms of the S.R value i.e., difference value. The counsel would vehemently contend that this fact has not been considered by the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court modified and comes to the conclusion that the said point finding is incorrect. Both the Courts fail to consider the hardship and discretion while granting the relief of specific performance. The counsel would vehemently contend that when the suit is filed for the relief of specific performance and it is the discretion vest with the Court to appreciate the material available on record. Both the Courts have not discussed the very discretion. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.34 of the judgment of the Trial Court wherein though the discussed Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act and not passed any detailed order and only an observation is made that the relief can be moulded under Order VII Rule 7 of CPC and not exercised the discretion properly. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.34 of the judgment of the Trial Court wherein though the discussed Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act and not passed any detailed order and only an observation is made that the relief can be moulded under Order VII Rule 7 of CPC and not exercised the discretion properly. The counsel also would vehemently contend that the First Appellate Court not properly appreciated the Section 20 of Specific Relief Act and only a formal discussion was made in the paragraph No.34 and not discussed the evidence available on record with regard to the exercising the discretion. Hence, the Court has to exercise the discretion considering the material available on record. 6. Per Contra, the counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff would vehemently contend that the very contention is that the document of sale agreement is only a collateral security, the same has not been proved that it was a loan transaction and the document is executed as security document as contended. The counsel also would vehemently contend that in order to prove the sale agreement, witnesses have been examined and nothing is elicited from the mouth of the witnesses. The document is also a registered sale agreement. It is contended that nothing is suggested to the witnesses as the said document is a collateral security. The counsel would vehemently contend that no time is fixed as 6 months in terms of the sale agreement since sale agreement dated 28.05.2012. Though contend that the market value is more and relied upon document Ex.D2, the same is dated 19.05.2014 almost after 2 years, the said sale agreement came into existence. The counsel also would vehemently contend that the property which is agreed is remote village property. No road access to the suit schedule property. In respect of Ex.D2, there are two roads and property which is agreed is a dry land. The counsel would vehemently contend that though guideline value is more and agreed sale consideration is lesser. No unfair advantage is taken and defense which has been taken has not been proved. No suggestions made to the witnesses. Even not sought for any relief of cancellation of agreement. When such being the case, the contention of the appellants’ counsel that discretion has not been properly exercised cannot be accepted. No unfair advantage is taken and defense which has been taken has not been proved. No suggestions made to the witnesses. Even not sought for any relief of cancellation of agreement. When such being the case, the contention of the appellants’ counsel that discretion has not been properly exercised cannot be accepted. The counsel also would vehemently contend that the registered document is in existence unless the same is questioned and the same cannot be ignored. The PW3 supported the case of the plaintiff also. The reasoning given by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court are justified and Ex.P7 also categorically admitted. Hence, it does not require any interference. 7. The counsel in support of his argument, he relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Civil Appeal No.3574/2009 dated 18.09.2020 in case of B. Santoshamma and another V/s D. Sarala and another and the counsel brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.69 with regard to the exercising of discretion, the amendment effect from 01.10.2018 and the same have been substituted with the word specific performance of contract shall be enforced subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 11, Section 14 and Section 16. The relief of specific performance of contract is no longer discretionary and brought to notice of discussion made in paragraph No.70 after the amendment. 8. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court full bench reported ILR 2014 KAR 4257 in case of The Hassan Co-operative Milk Producers Societies Union Limited and Others V/s State of Karnataka, Department of Co-operative Societies and others and brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.21 that the effect of amendment by way of substitution and to find out whether amendment by Act No.3 of 2013, by way of substitution would have retrospective operation. In this paragraph this Court discussed the judgment of the Apex Court i.e., distinction between suppression of rule and substitution of a rule and held that the process of substitution consists of two steps: first, the old rule is made to cease to exist and, next, the new rule is brought into existence in its place. In this paragraph this Court discussed the judgment of the Apex Court i.e., distinction between suppression of rule and substitution of a rule and held that the process of substitution consists of two steps: first, the old rule is made to cease to exist and, next, the new rule is brought into existence in its place. Thus, what emerges from the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court is that an amendment which has the effect of substitution of a provision has the effect of replacing the old provision by the substituted provision and in the absence of repugnancy, inconsistency and absurdity, must be construed as if it has been incorporated in the Act right from ab-initio. In other words, an amendment by way of substitution has retrospective operation. The counsel referring this judgment would vehemently contend that if any substitution is made by amendment, the same is having the effect of retrospective. 9. The counsel also relied upon the judgment reported in ILR 1984 KAR 858 in case of C. Munichowdappa V/s State of Karnataka and others and brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.31 wherein an observation is made that decisions make it abundantly clear that the discretionary power given to an authority cannot be claimed as a matter of right and no party has a vested right in the said remedy. 10. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Civil Appeal No.5110/2021 dated 26.10.2021 in case of Sughar Singh V/s Hari Singh (Dead) through LRs. and Others and brought to notice of this Court the discussion made in paragraph No.10 with regard to the execution of agreement duly executed and plaintiff is found to be ready and willing to perform his part of contract, grant of decree of specific performance is not automatic and it is a discretionary relief is concerned, the same cannot be accepted and/or approved. In such a case, many a times it would be giving a premium to the dishonest conduct on the part of the defendant/executant of the agreement to sell. Even the discretion under Section 20 of the Act is required to be exercised judiciously, soundly and reasonably. In such a case, many a times it would be giving a premium to the dishonest conduct on the part of the defendant/executant of the agreement to sell. Even the discretion under Section 20 of the Act is required to be exercised judiciously, soundly and reasonably. The plaintiff cannot be punished by refusing the relief of specific performance despite the fact that the execution of agreement to sell in his favor has been established and proved and that he is found to be always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.10.1 also wherein held that even otherwise no cogent reasons have been given as to why the decree of specific performance shall not be passed in favour of the plaintiff. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.11 and an observation is made that there are concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below that the defendant Nos.2 to 5 were in knowledge of the agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff, despite the same they purchased the suit schedule land surreptitiously. 11. The counsel appearing for the respondent in his reply argument would vehemently contend that the defendant specifically pleaded that it was only a loan transaction and not a sale transaction. Even he told that he would pay the amount which he has received with interest and immediately after the receipt of notice, met him and offered to pay the amount and cancel the agreement, but he did not agree with an intention to knock of the property for lower price. 12. The counsel also would vehemently contend that the notice also issued after 10 months and not issued the notice before 6 months and time is essence of the contract and 6 months time is fixed. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court, the Ex.P7-reply given by him wherein also specifically pleaded that it was only a loan transaction and not the sale transaction and property value more than Rs.20,00,000/- per acre not exceeds. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court, the Ex.P7-reply given by him wherein also specifically pleaded that it was only a loan transaction and not the sale transaction and property value more than Rs.20,00,000/- per acre not exceeds. The counsel also would vehemently contend that when specific pleading is made with regard to the sale transaction throughout from the date of issuance of reply and also chief examination and in the cross-examination no question is put with regard to hardship which has been pleaded by the plaintiff and also it is a specific case that bore well is installed and there are coconut trees, the same has been appreciated by both the Trial Courts as well as the First Appellate Court. The counsel also would vehemently contend that the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that sale consideration is not in terms of the S.R value. The Trial Court itself has enhanced voluntarily and ordered to pay the more consideration. Hence, the counsel would vehemently contend that Section 20(b) of Specific Relief Act has not been properly considered by both the Courts. 13. The counsel in support of his argument brought to notice of this Court KCS Rules and contend that every government servant shall on his first appointment to any service or post and thereafter at the interval of every twelve month submit a return of his assets and liabilities by furnishing useful particulars. No government or any member of his family shall, except with the previous knowledge of the prescribed authority, acquire or dispose of any immovable property by lease, mortgage, purchase, sale, gift or otherwise either in his own name or in the name of any member of his family. Provided that the previous sanction of the prescribed authority shall be obtained by the Government Servant if any such transaction is with a person having official dealing with the Government, or otherwise than through a regular or reputed dealer. No such permission is taken. 14. The counsel for the appellant in his argument relies upon judgment of this Court reported in ILR 2014 KAR 5778 in case of Smt. Asharaj and others V/s S.G. Nagaraj @ Suga Nagaraj and brought to notice of this Court discussion made in paragraph No.31 and an observation is made that it is true that inadequacy of consideration is not a ground to reject the relief of specific performance. But that can be considered as one of the attending circumstances with other attending circumstances like the plaintiff being a money lender and transaction in question being a loan transaction and suppression of the material fact of the existence of a two storied 15 square R.C.C. building in the suit land and fence being put all around the land and fruit bearing plants being in existence. The consideration shown in Ex.P1 is so grossly inadequate that no prudent man can consider the same as a reasonable consideration. The consideration show in Ex.P1 is not just on the lower side but shockingly inadequate. Instances of advancing loan and insisting for a registered agreement of sale as security for the same is not uncommon in our country. It is in this regard the Court is bound to look into all the circumstances surrounding a transaction in order to know the exact nature of the transaction. 15. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Civil Appeal No.150/2022 dated 20.01.2022 in case of Shenbagam and others V/s K.K. Rathinavel and brought to notice of this Court the discussion made in paragraph No.34 that ordinarily, the plaintiff is not to be denied the relief of specific performance only on account of the phenomenal increase of price during the pendency of litigation. That may be, in a given case, one of the considerations besides many others to be taken into consideration for refusing the decree of specific performance. As a general rule, it cannot be held that ordinarily the plaintiff cannot be allowed to have, for her alone, the entire benefit of phenomenal increase of the value of the property during the pendency of the litigation. While balancing the equities, one of the considerations to be kept in view is as to who is the defaulting party. It is also to be borne in mind whether as party is trying to take undue advantage over the other as also the hardship that may be caused to the defendant by directing specific performance. The totality of the circumstances is required to be seen. It is also to be borne in mind whether as party is trying to take undue advantage over the other as also the hardship that may be caused to the defendant by directing specific performance. The totality of the circumstances is required to be seen. It is also observed in paragraph No.36 that in deciding whether to grant the remedy of specific performance, specifically in suits relating to the sale of immovable property, the Court must be cognizant of the conduct of the parties, the escalation of the price of the suit property, and whether one party will unfairly benefit from the decree. The remedy provided must not cause injustice to a party, specifically when they are not at fault. It is also observed that the price of the suit property would undoubtedly have escalated. Given the blemished conduct of the respondent-plaintiff in indicating his willingness to perform the contract, we decline in any event to grant the remedy of specific performance of the contract. However, we order a refund of consideration together with interest at 6% per annum. 16. The counsel also relied upon the judgment in Civil Appeal No.3049/2017 in case of Jayakantham and others V/s Abaykumar and brought to notice of this Court discussion made in paragraph No.9 wherein judgment of the Apex Court has been discussed in case of Parakunnan Veetil Joseph’s son Mathew V/s Nedumbara Kurvila’s son and others wherein extracted Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and also brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.11 that the material which has been placed on record indicates that the terms of the contract, the conduct of parties at the time of entering into the agreement and circumstances under which the contract was entered into gave the plaintiff an unfair advantage over the defendants. These circumstances make it inequitable to enforce specific performance and in paragraph No.12 also discussed that for the above reasons a decree for the payment of compensation in lieu of specific performance would meet the ends of justice. 17. Having considered the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra by both the parties and also substantial question of law framed by this Court. This Court has to consider the material available on record. 17. Having considered the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra by both the parties and also substantial question of law framed by this Court. This Court has to consider the material available on record. This Court has framed the substantial questions of law as whether the Courts below have consider the mandate under Section 20 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 in the light of the evidence available on record. 18. Now, this Court has to see the very pleadings of the parties and also the evidence. In view of the pleadings of the plaintiff, it is the specific case that an agreement was entered for a valuable sale consideration of Rs.2,89,000/- in respect of the property measuring 2 acre 13 guntas in Sy.No.222/1 and in respect of Sy.No.222/2 measuring 1 acre 5 guntas and in respect to Sy.No.222/3 measuring 1 acre 5 guntas, total extent 4 acre 23 guntas and sale consideration is fixed as Rs.2,89,000/- and also it is the case that earnest money of Rs.2,00,000/- has been paid as on the date of sale agreement. It is also important to note that sale agreement which has been executed is a registered document. The defendant particularly in the written statement took the specific defense in paragraph No.6 that he was in financial crisis in view of agricultural loss. Hence, he has approached the defendant for financial assistance and he had agreed to lend money. In paragraph No.7 specific defense was taken that he has borrowed the loan of Rs.2,00,000/- and he insisted to execute the agreement of sale and hence, he had put the signature to agreement of sale and inspite of he offered the amount, he did not come forward to receive the amount and even he is ready to pay the amount with interest as pleaded in paragraph No.8 of the written statement. No dispute with regard to there exists a sale agreement. No dispute with regard to having paid the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 28.05.2012. The Issue between the parties is whether it is a loan transaction and whether the discretion has been exercised by both the Courts. It has to be noted that it is emerged in the evidence that the S.R value of the property as on the date of sale is Rs.90,000/- per acre as sale consideration. The Issue between the parties is whether it is a loan transaction and whether the discretion has been exercised by both the Courts. It has to be noted that it is emerged in the evidence that the S.R value of the property as on the date of sale is Rs.90,000/- per acre as sale consideration. It is not in dispute that the Trial Court having noticed the same directed the plaintiff to pay the difference amount of Rs.1,19,000/-. Having considered the property is measuring 4 acre 23 guntas and computed the market value it comes to Rs.4,08,000/- whereas the agreement is only for Rs.2,89,000/- however, invoked Order 7 Rule 7 of CPC to mould the relief and directed to pay the difference amount. Hence, it is clear that the sale consideration is not in terms of the S.R value. The First Appellate Court reversed the finding of the Trial Court in coming to the conclusion that the said finding of the Trial Court is incorrect for a simple reason that, the defendants have resisted the claim of the plaintiff on false grounds. Hence, they are entitled for the additional amount as granted by the Trial Court. The very approach of the First Appellate Court is not correct and Court has to take note of the material available on record in toto. The First Appellate Court in paragraph No.23 of the judgment discussed the defendant’s counsel has also drawn the attention of the Court towards the contents of Ex.D2–sale agreement and argued that the value of the suit schedule property is more than Rs.20,00,000/-. If the value of the suit property is Rs.90,000/- per acre, the total value of the suit property comes to Rs.4,08,000/-. The finding is given that the said contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is not maintainable for the simple reason that Ex.D2 is sale agreement which was executed during the year 2014, which is after the execution of the sale agreement. The sale transaction of the present case held between the plaintiff and defendants is in the year 2012. The said reasoning also not correct since the difference between both the sale agreement subject matter in issue and also the said Ex.D2 is only for a period of 2 years. But, in terms of Ex.D2, the value is Rs.45,76,000/-. The sale transaction of the present case held between the plaintiff and defendants is in the year 2012. The said reasoning also not correct since the difference between both the sale agreement subject matter in issue and also the said Ex.D2 is only for a period of 2 years. But, in terms of Ex.D2, the value is Rs.45,76,000/-. Apart from that the witness PW3 who has been examined on behalf of plaintiff for the relief of specific performance has categorically admitted in the cross-examination that the property will be sold more than the market value. He is also the owner of the land and he is also having kushki land. He also sold some of the properties. When the Document Ex.D2 is confronted to him, he categorically admits that he sold his property to an extent of 5 acre 8 guntas at the rate of Rs.22,000/- per gunta. The value of the sale consideration is Rs.45,76,000/- and also he re-iterates that the property will be sold more than the market value fixed by the government. This admission is also not discussed by both the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and reasoning given by the appellate Court that the sale deed executed after 2 years. There cannot be higher rate of Rs.45,76,000/- within a span of 2 years and consideration of Rs.2,89,000/- to an extent 4 acre 23 guntas and that too lesser the value of market value fixed by the government i.e., Rs.90,000/- per acre. Hence, it is clear that the very contention of the appellant/defendant that taking an unfair advantage, the sale agreement is obtained. 19. It is important to note that PW1 is the government school teacher and he categorically admits that while purchasing the property, he has to take the permission from the government. The counsel for the appellant also relied upon the KCS Rules. No doubt at the time of getting registered the document he has to obtain the permission. It is important to note that there is a mescription of extent of the property particularly in Sy.No.221/1 in the R.T.C and also he admit that it is only mentioned as 18 guntas and he came to know about the same. He has not given any notice for rectification. 20. It is important to note that there is a mescription of extent of the property particularly in Sy.No.221/1 in the R.T.C and also he admit that it is only mentioned as 18 guntas and he came to know about the same. He has not given any notice for rectification. 20. It is important to note that there are tourism places at the distance of 17 kms from the place of suit schedule property. He also categorically admits that PW3 is his witness. He categorically admits that the said PW3 is also having the properties and also he admits that there is a bore well and also coconut tress. He says that the bore well is not in order. Hence, it is clear that the property though contend that it is in remote place and not fertile land, but the fact is that the property is having the bore well and coconut trees all these aspects ought to have been considered while exercising the discretion in favour of the parties. 21. The other witness is PW2, he also categorically admits that formers are facing difficulties in view of shortfall of rain and they used to get the loan. The defendant No.1 is agriculturist and he also admits that while availing loan from the bank, they need more documents. The suggestion was made that when it is difficult to get the loan from the bank, they used to get the loan from the private people. He says that he is not aware of the same. 22. The other witness is PW4 who is the scribe of the document. In his cross-examination also he admits that while preparing the document, they mention the genesis of title and he also admits that he inserted two lines in Ex.P1 and the same has to be counter signed and the same has note been done. No doubt in the cross-examination of DW1, he also categorically admits that other than suit schedule property he is having 3 acres of land. The contention of the counsel that except this property, he is not having any other property. Hence, the counsel appearing for the respondent brought to notice of this Court, he is having other properties also, the same is also having IP set. He re-iterates that bore well is installed in the suit schedule property. The contention of the counsel that except this property, he is not having any other property. Hence, the counsel appearing for the respondent brought to notice of this Court, he is having other properties also, the same is also having IP set. He re-iterates that bore well is installed in the suit schedule property. The difference between the property which was sold by the PW3 and also the property of the defendants is at the distance of 1 ½ Kms, the same is noted by both the Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court. It is important to note that when the notice was issued in terms of the Ex.P2 in terms of Ex.P1, the specific defense is set out by the defendant in terms of Ex.P7 that it was only a loan transaction and also categorical defense was set out that property valued more than Rs.20,00,000/- and the same cannot be sold for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. Having considered the reply in the beginning itself, he took the specific defense that the property is having more than Rs.20,00,000/-. Having considered the document Ex.D2 as well as the evidence of PW3, both the Courts ought to have considered the material on record while exercising the discretion in favour of the plaintiff. No doubt the counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon the several judgments of the Apex Court with regard to exercising of the discretion and also brought to notice of this Court amendment made in the year 2018 and also discussions were made if it is substitution, the same to be retrospective interpretation and not prospective interpretation. It is important to note that the Apex Court judgment quoted by the appellant is the recent judgment delivered on 20.01.2022, the same is subsequent to the Specific Relief Act. In paragraph No.34 of the said judgment, it is brought to notice of this Court the Apex Court discussed in detail which is extracted as hereunder : In Nirmala Anand V/s Advent Corporation (P.) Ltd. and others, three-Judge Bench of this Court observed that in case of a phenomenal increase in the (2013) 8 SCC 131 PART price of the land, the Court may impose a reasonable condition in the decree such as payment of an additional amount by the purchaser. In decreeing the suit for specific performance, the Court observed: “It is true that grant of decree of specific performance lies in the discretion of the Court and it is also well settled that it is not always necessary to grant specific performance simply for the reason that it is legal to do so. It is further well settled that the Court in its discretion can impose any reasonable condition including payment of an additional amount by one party to the other while granting or refusing decree of specific performance. Whether the purchaser shall be directed to pay an additional amount to the seller or converse would depend upon the facts and additional amount to the seller or converse would depend upon the facts and circumstances of a case. Ordinarily, the plaintiff is not to be denied the relief of specific performance only on account of the phenomenal increase of price during the pendency of litigation. That may be, in a given case, one of the considerations besides many others to be taken into consideration for refusing the decree of specific performance. As a general rule, it cannot be held that ordinarily the plaintiff cannot be allowed to have, for her alone, the entire benefit of phenomenal increase of the value of the property during the pendency of the litigation. While balancing the equities, one of the considerations to be kept in view is as to who is the defaulting party. It is also to be borne in mind whether as party is trying to take undue advantage over the other as also the hardship that may be caused to the defendant by directing specific performance. The totality of the circumstances is required to be seen.” (Emphasis supplied) 23. Having perused the discussions made by the Apex Court, the Apex Court observed in decreeing the suit for specific performance held that ordinarily, the plaintiff is not to be denied for the relief of specific performance only on account of phenomenal increase of price during the pendency of the litigation. One of the consideration besides many others to be taken into consideration for the refusing decree of the specific performance. As a general rule that it cannot be held that ordinarily the plaintiff cannot be allowed to have, for her alone, the entire benefit of phenomenal increase of the value of the property during the pendency of the litigation. One of the consideration besides many others to be taken into consideration for the refusing decree of the specific performance. As a general rule that it cannot be held that ordinarily the plaintiff cannot be allowed to have, for her alone, the entire benefit of phenomenal increase of the value of the property during the pendency of the litigation. While balancing the equities, one of the considerations to be kept in view is as to who is the defaulting party. It is also observed that It is also to be borne in mind whether as party is trying to take undue advantage over the other as also the hardship that may be caused to the defendant by directing specific performance. The totality of the circumstances is required to be seen. In the case on hand, it has to be noted that it is not the case of phenomenal increase of price during the pendency of litigation. But, in the case on hand, it is specifically admitted that the market value is more i.e., Rs.90,000/- and sale consideration is fixed only Rs.2,89,000/- to the total area of the property 4 acre 33 guntas. Even at the time of the selling the property the value is more. Hence, it is clear that even at the time of entering into agreement, the consideration is less than the market value. I have already pointed out the PW3 categorically admitted that property will be sold more than the market value. The witness of the plaintiff himself categorically admits and re-iterates property would be sold more than the market value fixed by the government. But, in the case on hand, lesser the value considering the consideration in terms of the sale agreement. The Apex Court also in the judgment referred supra also held that in suit relating to the sale of immovable property, the Court must be cognizant of the conduct of the parties, the escalation of the price of the suit property, and whether one party will unfairly benefit from the decree. In the case on hand also that it is the case of the specific defense of the defendant that the market value is more and he agreed to execute a document of sale agreement as a security for loan transaction. In the case on hand also that it is the case of the specific defense of the defendant that the market value is more and he agreed to execute a document of sale agreement as a security for loan transaction. When the sale consideration is fixed Rs.2,89,0000/- and only an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid and aggregate value of the sale consideration is lesser the value of the market value. These are the aspects ought to have been discussed by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court, the same has not been done. Hence, the judgment of the Apex Court in Shenbagam and others V/s K.K. Rathinavel case referred supra is applicable to the facts of the case when the property market value is more than the agreed rate of consideration and it is not a case of phenomenal increase of the property value during the pendency even at the time of entering into the agreement, consideration is less than the market value. The other judgment delivered by the Apex Court also in the year 2017 i.e., in case of Jayakantham and others V/s Abaykumar referred by the appellants’ counsel. The Apex Court discussed Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act and Court is not bound to grant specific performance merely because lawful to do so. The grant of the relief of specific performance is discretionary, the circumstances specified in Section 20 is only illustrative and not exhaustive. The Court has to take note of the conduct of the parties and respective interest under the contract and also Court has to take note of circumstances under which the contract was entered into gave the plaintiff an unfair advantage over the defendants. In the case on hand, when sale consideration was fixed less than the market value and admittedly the property will be sold more than the market value. The Court has to take note that it is an unfair advantage over the defendants and held in this judgment that these circumstances will make the inequitable to enforce specific performance. 24. In the case on hand, when sale consideration was fixed less than the market value and admittedly the property will be sold more than the market value. The Court has to take note that it is an unfair advantage over the defendants and held in this judgment that these circumstances will make the inequitable to enforce specific performance. 24. Having considered the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra and also the judgments relied upon by the respondent’s counsel, no doubt the proviso is substituted and interpretation as contended by the respondent’s counsel when the relief is for discretionary relief, Court has to take note of totality of circumstances of the case which is discussed in detail also and the judgment relied upon by the appellant in ILR 2014 KAR 5778 also the division bench of this Court held that in paragraph No.31, it is true that inadequacy of consideration is not a ground to reject the relief of specific performance. But that can be considered as one of the attending circumstances with other attending circumstances like the plaintiff being a money lender and transaction in question being a loan transaction and suppression of the material fact of the existence of a two storied 15 square R.C.C building in the suit land and fence being put all around the land and fruit bearing plants being in existence. The consideration shown in Ex.P1 is so grossly inadequate that no prudent man can consider the same as a reasonable consideration. The consideration show in Ex.P1 is not just on the lower side but shockingly inadequate. Instances of advancing loan and insisting for a registered agreement of sale as security for the same is not uncommon in our country. Having considered the principles laid down in the judgment and also considering the circumstances under which the document came into existence in the case on hand also and the plaintiff is government employee working as a teacher and admittedly the defendant is a farmer and not having any worldly knowledge and also taking into consideration of mentioned in Ex.D2 in respect of the property which is located in the very same hobli as well as the nature of the property is a dry land and also located at the distance at 1½ kms between both of them. The sale consideration in respect of 5 acres of land is an amount of Rs.45,76,000/-. The sale consideration in respect of 5 acres of land is an amount of Rs.45,76,000/-. But, in the case on hand, in respect of extent of 4 acre 33 guntas only sale consideration is Rs.2,89,000/- and it is nothing but shockingly inadequate, not on the just lower side. These are the aspects ought to have been considered by both the Courts. Both the Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court even not discussed anything except discussing Section 20 of Specific Relief Act. The evidence available on record has not been discussed in detail with regard to the exercising the power under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act while exercising the discretion Court has to take note of the facts as well as question of law and the same has not been done by both the Courts. The answer elicited from the mouth of witnesses of plaintiff regarding availment of loan by the farmers under difficult circumstances also not discussed while exercising discretion. Mere execution of registered sale agreement of sale itself cannot be a ground to grant the relief of specific performance and court must be cognizant of the conduct of parties. Hence, I answered the substantial questions of law accordingly. 25. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following : ORDER (i) The second appeal is allowed. (ii) The judgment and decree of the Trial Court in O.S.No.381/2013 and the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.44/2015 is set-aside and ordered to refund the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) from the date of agreement with interest at 12%.