Chitambaresh, J.
The court below has correctly found that the execution of Ext.A1 agreement has been duly proved by the plaintiffs. The second plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and an independent witness was examined as PW.2 in the suit for specific performance. Moreover the defendant did not dispute his signature found in the stamp papers of the agreement. The contention of the defendant was that blank stamp papers containing his signature were converted into an agreement. The court below has given cogent reasons to disbelieve the version of the defendant. We are not inclined to interfere with that part of the finding of the court below as regards the due execution.
2. The jurisdiction to decree specific performance is discretionary as held in Thomas P.Abraham v. Aleyamma Abraham (2003 (3) KLT 864). The court is not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so. This is the essence of Section AS.No.528/1998 2 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 which is lost sight of by the court below. There is no discussion in the judgment as regards the exercise of discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The court below has granted a decree merely because the execution of Ext.A1 agreement is duly proved. The finding on Issue No.4 in the judgment can be profitably extracted hereunder:-
b