JUDGMENT : B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J. 1. This Appeal is filed by the appellant-defendant under Section 96 r/w Order XLI Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 assailing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Jangaon, Warangal District in OS.No.111 of 2012, dated 30.06.2017. 2. Appellant is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in OS.No.111 of 2012. 3.1. Respondent-plaintiff has filed suit for specific performance of contract in respect of agreement of sale dated 31.08.2012. 3.2. It is stated in the plaint that the appellant-defendant is the absolute owner and possessor of suit schedule property admeasuring Acs.03-21 guntas in Survey No.156, situated at Laxmapuram Village and he offered to sell the same to the respondent-plaintiff, after deliberations the sale consideration is fixed at Rs.2,21,000/- per acre, respondent-plaintiff agreed to purchase the same and he paid an amount of Rs.4,500/- to the appellant-defendant as advance, agreement came to be executed on 31.08.2012. 3.3. As per the agreement of sale dated 31.08.2012, Rs.1,00,000/- has to be paid on 09.09.2012, half of the sale consideration has to be paid within one month and the remaining sale consideration to be paid in the month of December, 2012. Respondent-plaintiff in performance of his part of contract, approached the appellant-defendant to pay Rs.1,00,000/- on 09.09.2012, but he refused to receive the same. Respondent- plaintiff once again approached the appellant-defendant in the first week of October, 2012 and requested him to receive the sale consideration and register the sale deed but he refused to receive the amount. As the appellant-defendant is avoiding to perform his part of contract on one pretext or the other, the respondent- plaintiff has got issued legal notice on 16.10.2012 demanding the appellant-defendant to receive the balance sale consideration and perform his part of contract, as he failed to do so, respondent- plaintiff filed the suit. 4. Appellant-defendant filed his written statement and denied the contents of the plaint in toto and further contended that he has not executed any document in favour of the respondent-plaintiff and the alleged document is a created one. 5. The learned trial Court has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the agreement of sale dated 31.08.2012 is true, legal, valid and binding on the defendant? 2. Whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract? 3. Whether the defendant has committed breach of contract? 4. 5. The learned trial Court has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the agreement of sale dated 31.08.2012 is true, legal, valid and binding on the defendant? 2. Whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract? 3. Whether the defendant has committed breach of contract? 4. Whether there is no cause of action to the plaintiff to file the suit? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance as prayed for? 6. To what relief? 6. Respondent-plaintiff is examined as PW.1 and also examined PW.2-Kola Narsi Reddy and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. Appellant is examined as DW.1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B8. It is apt to mention here that Ex.A5 is marked in the cross-examination of DW.1. 7. The learned trial Court after analysing the evidence adduced by the parties and after going through the documents marked thereon has decreed the suit with costs directing the defendant (appellant herein) to execute regular sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration within 2 months, failing which the plaintiff (respondent herein) shall proceed as per law. 8.1. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant submits that the learned trial Court ought to have seen that in a suit for specific performance of contract, the burden lies on the respondent- plaintiff to prove execution of agreement of sale. But in the instant case, the respondent-plaintiff has not taken any steps to prove the agreement of sale and the Court below simply held that the appellant-defendant is the owner of the property, came to a conclusion that there was a proposal and offer to sell the suit schedule property by the appellant-defendant to the respondent-plaintiff. 8.2. The Court below ought to have seen that except the testimony of PW.2, there is nothing on record to show that the agreement of sale dated 31.08.2012 was executed and the learned trial Court wrongly came to a conclusion that the respondent- plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract and decided issue No.1 in favour of respondent-plaintiff in the absence of any evidence to that effect. 8.3. The Court below passed the judgment on assumptions and presumptions and the findings on all the issues are based on probabilities but there is no evidence for recording the said finding and also failed to see that the suit has been filed by the respondent-plaintiff on false and created document. 8.3. The Court below passed the judgment on assumptions and presumptions and the findings on all the issues are based on probabilities but there is no evidence for recording the said finding and also failed to see that the suit has been filed by the respondent-plaintiff on false and created document. In support of his contention, he relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Pemmada Prabhakar and Others Vs. Youngmen’s Vysya Association and Others, (2015) 5 SCC 355 , (2) Nanjappan Vs. Ramasamy and Another, (2015) 14 SCC 341 , (3) Satish Kumar Vs. Karan Singh and Another , (2016) 4 SCC 352 and (4) Hemanta Mondal and Others Vs. Ganesh Chandra Naskar, (2016) 1 SCC 567 . 9. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the appellant-defendant during pendency of the case has alienated an extent of Ac.0-07 ½ guntas in Survey No.156 to Government of Telangana through Irrigation and Command Area Development represented by its Executive Engineer as per Ex.A5. Section 12 (2) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 states that where a party to a contract is unable to perform the whole of his part of it, but the part which must be left unperformed by only a small proportion to the whole in value and admits of compensation in money, the Court may, at the suit of either party, direct the specific performance of so much of the contract as can be performed. Counsel further submits that the appellant-defendant has not taken specific plea in the written statement about the boundaries of suit schedule property. So also no ground is taken in the grounds of Appeal. In support of his contention has placed reliance on the decisions in (1) Baikunthi Devi and Others Vs. Mahendra Nath and another, (1977) 2 SCC 496 : 1977 SCC OnLine SC 140, (2) Bachhaj Nahar Vs. Nilima Mandal and Another, (2008) 17 SCC 491 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 927 : 2008 SCC OnLine SC 1445 and (3) Pratap Lakshman Muchandi and Others Vs. Shamlal Uddavadas Wadhwa and Others, (2008) 12 SCC 67 : 2008 SCC OnLine SC 136 . 10. Learned counsel have filed their written submissions in support of their contentions. 11. Heard learned counsel on record, perused the material. 12. Now the points for consideration are: 1. Shamlal Uddavadas Wadhwa and Others, (2008) 12 SCC 67 : 2008 SCC OnLine SC 136 . 10. Learned counsel have filed their written submissions in support of their contentions. 11. Heard learned counsel on record, perused the material. 12. Now the points for consideration are: 1. Whether the respondent-plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of contract in respect of the agreement of sale dated 31.08.2012 for the rest of the portion after deleting the area covered under Ex.A5 i.e., 7½ guntas as per Section 12 (2) of Specific Relief Act, 1963 ? 2. Whether the learned trial Court has considered Section 12 (2) of Specific Relief Act while disposing of the case while considering Ex.A5? 3. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court in OS.No.111 of 2012 dated 30.06.2017 suffers from any perversity or illegality? If so, does it requires interference of this Court? 13. Before answering the contentions raised by the counsel on record, it is apt to refer Section 12 (2) of Specific Relief Act, 1963 , which reads as under: “12. Specific performance of part of contract: (1) ------ (2) Where a party to a contract is unable to perform the whole of his part of it, but the part which must be left unperformed by only a small proportion to the whole in value and admits of compensation in money, the court may, at the suit of either party, direct the specific performance of so much of the contract as can be performed, and award compensation in money for the deficiency”. 14. The prayer in the suit is as under: i) Pass a decree in favour of plaintiff directing the defendant to come and execute a registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff after receipt of remaining sale consideration of Rs.7,74,525/-. ii) In case the defendant fails to execute the above said deed as directed by the Court, the Court may itself execute the sale deed for and on behalf of the defendant in respect of the suit schedule land at the costs of the plaintiff. 15. The suit is filed by the respondent-plaintiff before amendment to the Specific Relief Act. 16. Section 20 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 prior to amendment reads as under: "20. 15. The suit is filed by the respondent-plaintiff before amendment to the Specific Relief Act. 16. Section 20 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 prior to amendment reads as under: "20. Discretion as to decreeing specific performance.- (1) The jurisdiction to decree specific performance is discretionary, and the court is not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so; but the discretion of the court is not arbitrary but sound and reasonable, guided by judicial principles and capable of correction by a court of appeal. (2) The following are cases in which the court may properly exercise discretion not to decree specific performance:- (a) where the terms of the contract or the conduct of the parties at the time of entering into the contract or the other circumstances under which the contract was entered into are such that the contract, though not voidable, gives the plaintiff an unfair advantage over the defendant; or (b) where the performance of the contract would involve some hardship on the defendant which he did not foresee, whereas its non-performance would involve no such hardship on the plaintiff; or (c) where the defendant entered into the contract under circumstances which though not rendering the contract voidable, makes it inequitable to enforce specific performance. Explanation 1 - Mere inadequacy of consideration, or the mere fact that the contract is onerous to the defendant or improvident in its nature, shall not be deemed to constitute an unfair advantage within the meaning of clause (a) or hardship within the meaning of clause (b). Explanation 2 - The question whether the performance of a contract would involve hardship on the defendant within the meaning of clause (b) shall, except in cases where the hardship has resulted from any act of the plaintiff subsequent to the contract, be determined with reference to the circumstances existing at the time of the contract. (3) The court may properly exercise discretion to decree specific performance in any case where the plaintiff has done substantial acts or suffered losses in consequence of a contract capable of specific performance. (4) The court shall not refuse to any party specific performance of a contract merely on the ground that the contract is not enforceable at the instance of the party." POINT NOS. 1 TO 3: 17. The evidence of the respondent-plaintiff as PW.1 is the same with that of his pleadings. (4) The court shall not refuse to any party specific performance of a contract merely on the ground that the contract is not enforceable at the instance of the party." POINT NOS. 1 TO 3: 17. The evidence of the respondent-plaintiff as PW.1 is the same with that of his pleadings. In his cross-examination, he stated that he do not know the total extent of the land in Sy.No.156 so also he do not know the sub-division number exists and Ex.A1 does not show the boundaries. The execution of Ex.A1 took place in the house of Dr.Raju of Bandanagaram Village, at the time of sale negotiations pahanies, patta passbooks pertaining to the schedule property where shown to him and the total sale consideration is Rs.7,79,025/- and he has shown his readiness to pay the balance sale consideration by showing the cash before the elders by name Narsi Reddy, Dr.Raju. The scribe of Ex.A1 is Dr.Raju and the attesting witnesses are K.Narsi Reddy, Bathini Ramulu and Ch.Surender Reddy. K.Narsi Reddy signed on Ex.A1 as first attestor and that he has not mentioned in legal notice (Ex.A2) as well as in the plaint that Ex.A1 was executed in the presence of all the said persons. Family members of the defendant (appellant herein) were not present at the time of execution of the documents. Respondent-plaintiff denied the suggestion that Ex.A1 is a created document and the signature of the appellant-defendant is forged. 18.1. PW.2-Narsi Reddy is the attestor to Ex.A1. He deposed that the appellant-defendant for his financial necessities has offered to sell the schedule property to the respondent-plaintiff and the respondent-plaintiff agreed to purchase the same i.e., land admeasuring Acs.3-21 guntas in Survey No.156 situated at Laxmapuram Village, Bachannapet Mandal, Warangal District and the rate was fixed at Rs.2,21,000/- per acre. The plaintiff (respondent herein) paid an amount of Rs.4,500/- to the defendant (appellant herein), after receipt of the said amount defendant (appellant herein) executed agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff (respondent herein ) on 31.08.2012. As per the terms of sale agreement, plaintiff (respondent herein) has approached the defendant (appellant herein) within stipulated period along with installment amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 09.09.2012 and requested the defendant to receive the amount and to pass a receipt but he has refused to receive the same and postponed the matter on one or the other pretext. As per the terms of sale agreement, plaintiff (respondent herein) has approached the defendant (appellant herein) within stipulated period along with installment amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 09.09.2012 and requested the defendant to receive the amount and to pass a receipt but he has refused to receive the same and postponed the matter on one or the other pretext. Respondent-Plaintiff has again approached the appellant-defendant along with entire sale consideration amount and requested him to receive the same and to register the property in favour of the respondent-plaintiff in the first week of October, 2012, but the appellant-defendant has refused the same. Dr.Raju has scribed Ex.A1, transaction has taken place in his presence and Ex.A1 is prepared in the house of Dr.Raju. Himself, Bathini Ramulu, Challa Sudhakar Reddy are the attestors to Ex.A1. 18.2. In his cross-examination, he stated that he is the first attestor to Ex.A1 and the transaction under Ex.A1 took place in the house of RMP Doctor by name Dr.Raju. Ex.A1 is prepared on a white paper and Laxmapur Revenue Circle is not mentioned. Boundaries of the property are also not mentioned in Ex.A1 and the appellant-defendant has got land in one compact block on the day of Ex.A1, advance amount of Rs.4,500/- is first paid and the total sale consideration of the property is Rs.7,79,025/- @ Rs.2,21,000/- per acre. As per Ex.A1 the balance sale consideration has to be paid in the month of December, 2012. PW.2 denied the suggestion that on 09.09.2012 the plaintiff was not ready to pay Rs.1,00,000/- and he never agreed to pay the balance sale consideration on October, 2012. He also denied the suggestion that Ex.A1 was not drafted in his presence and the appellant-defendant never sold the property under Ex.A1 nor executed the document and the agreement of sale is a created one to grab the schedule property of the appellant-defendant. 19. Vendee committing breach of agreement for sale of immovable property, not entitled to decree of specific performance of agreement - Failure of vendee to pay installments of sale consideration within periods as stipulated in deed of sale agreement, amounted to breach of terms of agreement - Hence, plaintiff vendee disentitled to decree of specific performance – See (Pemmada Prabhakar). 20. Vendee committing breach of agreement for sale of immovable property, not entitled to decree of specific performance of agreement - Failure of vendee to pay installments of sale consideration within periods as stipulated in deed of sale agreement, amounted to breach of terms of agreement - Hence, plaintiff vendee disentitled to decree of specific performance – See (Pemmada Prabhakar). 20. In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff has to aver and prove with satisfactory evidence that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract at all material time as mandatorily required under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 – See (Nanjappan). 21. It is well settled that the jurisdiction to order specific performance of contract is based on the existence of a valid and enforceable contract. Where a valid and enforceable contract has not been made, the court will not make a contract for them. Specific performance will not be ordered if the contract itself suffers from some defect which makes the contract invalid or unenforceable. The discretion of the court will not be there even though the contract is otherwise valid and enforceable – See (Satish Kumar). 22.1 Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 gives discretion to the court, and provides that the court is not bound to grant relief of specific performance merely because it is lawful to do so. It further provides that the discretion is not to be exercised arbitrarily but guided by judicial principles. Sub-section (2) of Section 20 enumerates three conditions when discretion is not to be exercised to grant decree of specific performance. 22.2 In the present case, it appears that possession was not given to the plaintiff at the time of execution of the agreement, nor the area of land agreed to be sold was clear, as such, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has done substantial acts or suffered losses due to expenditure in constructions, etc., in consequence of a contract capable of specific performance. The direction given by the High Court in the impugned order shows that the measurements of land actually agreed to be sold, are not final - See (Hemanta Mondal and others). 23.1. The direction given by the High Court in the impugned order shows that the measurements of land actually agreed to be sold, are not final - See (Hemanta Mondal and others). 23.1. The evidence of the appellant-defendant is the same as that of his written statement and he further stated in his chief affidavit that the suit schedule land is the only source of income to his livelihood and the present market value is more than Rs.50 Lakhs and the plaintiff (respondent herein) filed a suit with malafied intention. 23.2. In his cross-examination, he stated that he possess land of Acs.03-00 guntas in Survey No.156/G and 156/H situated at Laxmapur and he do not possess any other land except the suit property and he has purchased the same from one B.Ramalu. Himself and the plaintiff (respondent herein) are close friends and he has not signed on any document. He has received the legal notice got issued by the plaintiff (respondent herein) under Ex.A2, he informed his Advocate about the notice and he did not give any reply and the subject land is worth Rs.50 Lakhs as of now. He was confronted with the purported signature on Ex.A1 and was asked to read the signature, he read it as “Mohammed” and likewise, the W.S. filed by him was confronted and he was asked to read the Urdu signature and the witness read it as “Mohammed Imamuddin” and also admitted his signature in the chief affidavit, read it as “Mohammed Imamuddin” and at present he possessed Acs.03-21 guntas of land and he handed over an extent of 7 ½ guntas to the Government under Acquisition for Canal through a registered sale deed document No.2986 of 2016 dated 04.05.2016 which is Ex.A5. He admitted that Ac.0-07 ½ guntas forms part of Acs.03-21 guntas of the suit schedule property, so far he has not received any compensation from the Land Acquisition Officer/Government as the plaintiff (respondent herein) objected by causing legal notice to the Government during pendency of the suit. DW.1 denied the suggestion that he sold the suit schedule property under Ex.A1 to the plaintiff (respondent herein) on 31.08.2012 in the presence of PW.2, Dr. Raju, Bathini Ramulu and Challa Surender Reddy and the rate was fixed at Rs.2,21,000/- per acre and he has received Rs.4,500/- as token amount and signed on the document. DW.1 denied the suggestion that he sold the suit schedule property under Ex.A1 to the plaintiff (respondent herein) on 31.08.2012 in the presence of PW.2, Dr. Raju, Bathini Ramulu and Challa Surender Reddy and the rate was fixed at Rs.2,21,000/- per acre and he has received Rs.4,500/- as token amount and signed on the document. He also denied the suggestion that he has not mentioned in his chief affidavit or in the written statement that Survey No.156 does not belong to him and that he is in a habit of putting his signatures differently in different documents and changed his signatures for the purpose of the case. 24.1. Ex.A1 does not contain the schedule for Acs.03-25 guntas. So also it does not contain the name of the village where the property is situated. Ex.A1 is executed on 31.08.2012 which goes to show that the sale price is fixed at Rs.2,21,000/- per acre and an amount of Rs.4,500/- is paid on the date of execution of the document. The document further goes to show that Rs.1,00,000/- has to be paid on 09.09.2012 and 50% of the amount has to be paid within one month thereafter including Rs.1,00,000/- and by December, 2012, entire amount has to be paid. 24.2. Ex.A2 is the legal notice got issued by the respondent- plaintiff to the appellant-defendant dated 16.10.2012. As per Ex.A2 respondent-plaintiff has arranged Rs.1,00,000/- and approached the defendant (appellant herein) on 09.09.2012 but the defendant has postponed the same on one or the other reason. Notice further goes to show that respondent-plaintiff has arranged the entire balance sale consideration amount and he is ready to pay the same as per the agreement dated 31.08.2012 and demanded the appellant- defendant to come to the Sub-Registrar office, Cherial and register the land. Ex.A3 is the postal receipt and Ex.A4 is the acknowledgement card. Ex.A5 is C.C. of registered sale deed dated 04.05.2016 vide document No.2986 of 2016. 25. Ex.B1 is the 1-B (ROR) Namuna of the appellant-defendant. Exs.B2 to B5 are Mee-seva pahanies for the year 1424 Fasli and 1425 Fasli in respect of Survey No.156/G and 156/H/1 stands in the name of the appellant-defendant. Ex.B6 is the 1-B (ROR) Namuna of Gulla Devraju, Exs.B7 and B8 are the pahanies for the year 1424 Fasli and 1425 Fasli in Survey No.156. 26. Exs.B2 to B5 are Mee-seva pahanies for the year 1424 Fasli and 1425 Fasli in respect of Survey No.156/G and 156/H/1 stands in the name of the appellant-defendant. Ex.B6 is the 1-B (ROR) Namuna of Gulla Devraju, Exs.B7 and B8 are the pahanies for the year 1424 Fasli and 1425 Fasli in Survey No.156. 26. Actually, a tiny bit was also due to the first respondent, but he is willing to give it up. Such a situation is covered by Section 12 (2), Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the first respondent is entitled to enforce specifically the contract – See (Baikunthi Devi). 27. No amount of evidence, on a plea that is not put forward in the pleadings, can be looked into to grant any relief. Only in exceptional cases, can this general rule be deviated from, if the Court is fully satisfied that the pleadings and issues generally cover the case subsequently put forward and that the parties being conscious of the issue, had led evidence on such issue – See (Bachhaj Nahar). 28. The agreement to sale was executed for family necessity and the appellants cannot get out of it. But at the same time it is also true that the agreement to sell was executed way back in the year 1982. Since after 1982, the value of the real estate has shot up very high, therefore, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 the Court would like to be equitable and would not allow the sale of property to be executed for a sum of Rs 1,20,000/-. The litigation has prolonged for almost 25 years and now at last reached at the end of the journey. Therefore, the equity between the parties has to be settled. Because of the passage of time the respondents shall pay a sum of Rs 5 lakhs in addition to Rs 1,20,000/- - See (Pratap Lakshman Muchandi). 29. It is apt to note here that after the conclusion of the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, appellant-defendant has sold Ac.0-07 ½ guntas of land in favour of Government of Telangana State through Irrigation and CAD Department through a registered sale deed dated 04.05.2016 vide document No.2986 of 2016 with specific boundaries in Survey No.156 under Ex.A5. In Ex.A5 Katha number is shown as 458 which is matching with Katha number of Exs.B1 to B5. In Ex.A5 Katha number is shown as 458 which is matching with Katha number of Exs.B1 to B5. Appellant-defendant has admitted in his cross- examination that he sold Ac.0-07 ½ guntas of land to the Government from Acs.03-21 guntas. 30. Ex.A5 is marked through DW.1 on 09.03.2017. Respondent- plaintiff is aware that the appellant-defendant has sold Ac.0-07 ½ guntas of land out of Survey No.156, in spite of it he kept silent and did not take any steps before the learned trial Court nor it is the case of the respondent-plaintiff before the trial Court that they are entitled for specific performance of contract in respect of the rest of the property as per Section 12 (2) of Special Relief Act, 1963. 31. As stated supra, Ex.A1 does not have any boundaries and there is no explanation from the respondent-plaintiff how the boundaries were arrived in the plaint. The respondent-plaintiff for the first time in the Appeal contended that they are entitled for specific performance of contract for rest of the property under Section 12 (2) of the Act. 32. As per Ex.A1, the total sale consideration of the property is Rs.7,79,025/-. Respondent-plaintiff has paid pittance amount of Rs.4,500/- only. Though the respondent-plaintiff averred in the plaint that he is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract but there is no evidence on record to show that the respondent-plaintiff has done substantial acts or suffered losses in consequences of a contract capable of specific performance. If a party to a contract is unable to perform the whole of its part and the part which is left unperformed forms a considerable part of the contractual obligations. As stated supra, respondent-plaintiff was aware that the appellant-defendant has sold Acs.0-07 ½ guntas of land to the Government and furthermore, Ex.A1 is scribed on a white paper subsequently stamp duty and penalty is paid, which does not have boundaries. 33. The learned trial Court has not considered Ex.A5 while decreeing the suit for specific performance of contract nor the respondent-plaintiff’s counsel put forth that they are entitled for rest of the property for specific performance of contract. The learned trial Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction while decreeing a suit for specific performance. The appellant-defendant has put up a defence in his written statement that he has not executed Ex.A1 document. 34. The learned trial Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction while decreeing a suit for specific performance. The appellant-defendant has put up a defence in his written statement that he has not executed Ex.A1 document. 34. The decision cited by the respondent’s counsel stated supra in Para No.9 are not applicable to the case on hand in view of the fact that the facts in the present case do not match with the facts of the above said decisions. 35. The proposition laid down in Pemmada Prabhakar, Nanjappan and Satish Kumar is not in dispute. 36. The decision cited in Hemanta Mondal is applicable to the case on hand as the learned trial Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act while decreeing the suit. 37. Respondent-plaintiff has kept silent from 04.05.2016 and proceeded further with the suit without taking any steps nor projected their arguments that they are entitled for the rest of the property under Section 12 (2) of Specific Relief Act. 38. In view of the reasons above, this Court is of the view that the learned trial Court has not properly exercised its jurisdiction while declaring the suit for specific performance and there is no material on record to show that the respondent-plaintiff has done substantial acts or suffered losses and consequences of the contract capable of specific performance. 39. Respondent-plaintiff has not sought for return – refund of earnest money as contemplated under Section 22 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 . So also has not claimed any compensation under Section 21 of the Act. Hence, this Court is estopped from awarding compensation or refund of earnest money in absence of any prayer. Hence, points are answered accordingly. 40. In the result, appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Jangan in OS No.111 of 2012, dated 30.06.2017 is set aside. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed without costs. Interim Orders if any stands vacated. Miscellaneous application/s stands closed.