Law:

Section:

  Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 22 (I) (II)-Section not exhaustive-Instances in subsections (1) and (II)-Illustrative-- Grant of specific performance--Absolutely within Court's discretion to be exercised judicially depending on circumstances of each case-No rigid rule as to when and where discretion is to be exercised.   Gaj Kumar Chand v. Lachman Ram A I R 1926 Cal. 1236 fol.   Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 22-Court has discretion to refuse even lawful specific performance.   Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 22-Specific perform ance-Sought to be enforced against subsequent purchaser having right of pre-emption-Relief to be refused.   Pre-emption-System of Law (i.e., Muhammadan) appli cable-Determination of-Intention of parties regarding sale and provision of law under which sale should be completed, a guiding principle to determine.   Sitaram Bhaurao Deshmukh and others v. Jiaul Hasan Sirajul Khan 48 I A 475 fol. JUDGMENT   HASAN, J.-This appeal, at the instance of the plaintiff, is directed against the judgment and decree passed in a suit for specific performance of contract.   The plaintiff -appellant instituted a suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, forspecific performance of contract for sale against all the defendants failing that, in respect of the 7/10th share of defendant No. 1 (Syed Ejazuddin Ahmed) and defendant No. 2 (Syed Imamuddin Ahmed at proportionate price and in the alternative, for recovery from the said defendants Nos. 1 and 2 of a sum of Rs. 1664-10-0 paid as advance price and Rs. 1193-7-6 spent by the plaintiff for repairing the premises contracted to be sold.   The suit was contested by the defendants Nos. 1 and 4. Defendant No. 1 contendedthat he agreed to sell the property in question to the plaintiff provided he succeeded inducing the other co-sharers to agree to sell the same and that the agreement was fraudulently obtained from him. The contention of the defendant No. 4, a lady, was that she or her mother did not enter into any contract to sell the premises in question to the plaintiff.   The two Courts below have taken two different views. The learned…