power of attorney from the point of view of the fact that the defendant purported to cancel the power of attorney on 11.07.2003 and that was the first occasion for the 1st defendant to set out any vitiating circumstance if there existed any at the time of execution of the power of attorney. There was, on the other hand, no reference to any fraud or coercion as having been practiced by his son and the document had actually been witnessed by the son-in-law of the 2nd defendant. When the near relations of the 1st defendant had themselves been parties to the power of attorney and the agreement, the Court found that the plea of fraud or coercion as spoken to by the defendant cannot be true. The same argument is also made before me by the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to say that the father could have never gone far away to execute the power of attorney. I will hold that if he was going to issue power of attorney in the favour of his son, there was nothing artificial about it, unless it was made clear that the father and the son had been at logger heads for a long time. The Court found no such evidence as available but the 1st defendant was attempting to resile from the agreement and by deceit a sale deed was executed in favour of his grand children. When there was no fraud found then the consequence of specific performance was a natural corollary by virtue of Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act. In an action for enforcement of contract for sale of immovable property, specific performance is only appropriate remedy and not damages. There must be something particular pointed out from the evidence that the plaintiff's conduct was such that it was grossly inequitable for the plaintiff to obtain the specific relief. As it turns out that even the 1st defendant is not alive and the contest is taken only by PANKAJ KUMAR 2015.09.29 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
