Specific performance denied for suppression of material facts, while post-decree interest was added to the damages award.

Specific performance, as an equitable and discretionary remedy, may be refused where the plaintiff suppresses material facts or advances incorrect pleadings on essential matters such as ownership, possession and novation. The plaintiffs' pleadings contradicted the draft sale deed and the evidence did not support their claimed version of the transaction, so refusal of specific performance was justified. The alternative damages decree was treated as incomplete without post-decree interest, and the monetary relief was therefore modified by adding interest at 6% per annum from the date of the trial court decree until payment or realisation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to discretionary relief of specific performance in view of the suppression of material facts and their pleadings and conduct concerning the nature of the property and the alleged novation. (ii) Whether the decree for damages required modification by granting interest on the awarded amount.

Issue (i): Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to discretionary relief of specific performance in view of the suppression of material facts and their pleadings and conduct concerning the nature of the property and the alleged novation.

Analysis: Relief of specific performance is an equitable and discretionary remedy under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The plaintiffs had pleaded that the defendant contracted as an individual owner, while the draft sale deed relied upon by them described him as Karta of the HUF and also recorded delivery of possession. The first plaintiff admitted that the property belonged to the HUF, yet the plaint suppressed that fact. The plaintiffs also pleaded a reduced price and delivery of possession, but the first plaintiff's evidence did not support those assertions. In these circumstances, the conduct of the plaintiffs, including incorrect and material pleadings, justified refusal of the equitable relief. The courts below were therefore right in declining to grant specific performance of the entire property.

Conclusion: The refusal of specific performance was upheld, and this issue was decided against the plaintiffs.

Issue (ii): Whether the decree for damages required modification by granting interest on the awarded amount.

Analysis: The Trial Court had awarded damages of Rs. 40,000/- but had not granted interest from the date of the decree. The amount awarded as alternative relief was found liable to carry interest to make the decree complete and workable.

Conclusion: The decree was modified to add interest at 6% per annum on the damages from the date of the Trial Court decree till payment or realisation.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal of the claim for specific performance remained undisturbed, while the monetary relief was marginally enhanced by the grant of post-decree interest.

Ratio Decidendi: Specific performance being an equitable and discretionary remedy may be refused where the plaintiff suppresses material facts or advances incorrect pleadings on essential aspects of the contract and property, even if other ancillary monetary relief is maintainable.

---