Specific performance is a discretionary remedy, granted only to parties who approach the court with clean hands, and any material alteration in a contract undermines this principle.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.

1. This RSA is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 18.03.2015 passed in R.A. No.29 of 2014 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore and the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2013 passed in O.S. No.287 of 2013 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru District, Bengaluru.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their ranking before the Trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondents were the defendants.

3. Brief facts of the case leading rise to the filing of this appeal are follows.

4. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for specific performance of a contract. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant No.1 is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and he agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a valid consideration and accordingly executed a sale agreement on 18.06.2001 and it was agreed that the sale was to be concluded within 4 months from the date of execution of the sale agreement and the plaintiff paid Rs. 51,000/- to defendant No.1 out of sale consideration of Rs. 1,92,700/-. Defendant No.1 after receiving the earnest money executed a sale agreement. The plaintiff requested defendant No.1 to receive the balance sale consideration amount and executed a registered sale deed. Defendant No.1 neither received the balance sale consideration amount nor executed a registered sale deed. The plaintiff issued a legal notice on 09.01.2002 calling upon defendant No.1 to receive the balance sale consideration amount and execute a registered sale deed. Defendant No.1 replied to the said legal notice admitting the execution of a sale agreement but denied that the plaintiff was/is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.

5. It is contended that defendant No.1 was in need of money and as the plaintiff did not pay the balance sale consideration amount, defendant No.1 sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.2. In view of the denial of execution of a registered sale deed by defendant No.1, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for specific performance of a contract. It is contended that defendant No.1 in part performance of the contract, delivered the possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Hence, prays to decree the suit.

6. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement admitting the execution of a sale agreement and contended that the plaintiff did not pay the balance sale consideration amount and defendant No.1 was in need of money and hence, sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.2 and executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 and defendant No.2 is in possession of the suit schedule property. It is also contended that the plaintiff has inserted a sentence regarding the possession of the suit schedule property in the agreement of sale after its execution. The plaintiff has failed to prove that the plaintiff was/is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit against defendant No.1.

7. Defendant No.2 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and contended that defendant No.1 was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and he sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.2 for a valuable consideration and executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 and defendant No.2 is the owner of the suit schedule property, the possession of which was delivered to him. Defendant No.2 is the bona fide purchaser of the suit schedule property for value without notice. It is also contended that the plaintiff has inserted a sentence regarding the delivery of possession of the suit schedule property in the agreement of sale after its execution. Hence, the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands. H