The main legal point established in the judgment is that specific performance is an equitable relief, and the party seeking it must come before the court with clean hands. The court also addressed the issue of price escalation and directed the plaintiff to pay an additional amount to mitigate the hardship to the defendants.

1. This is defendants appeal.

2, The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows - The plaintiff was interested in buying agricultural land. He had, therefore, made a request to one Mr.Bang to be in search of agricultural land for him. Through Shri Bang, the plaintiff approached the defendant no.1 in September, 1989 for purchasing the land belonging to the defendant. The defendant agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff for consideration of Rs.40,000/- per acre. It was agreed initially that the plaintiff will pay Rs.5000/- as an advance and part of the consideration i.e. Rs.1,50,000/- shall be paid on or about 6/11/1989, on the date the defendant agreed to execute an agreement of sale. Balance of the consideration was to be paid at the time of the execution of the sale-deed. The defendant executed an agreement in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff paid him Rs.1,55,000/-. It was agreed that the property shall be sold free from all encumbrances. The agreement was to be completed by 30/5/1990. It was also agreed that the defendant would assist the plaintiff in obtaining No-objection-Certificate from the competent authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, Income Tax Clearance Certificate and other things. The plaintiff submits that he was always ready and willing to take the sale-deed. The defendant did not collect the necessary documents. On the other hand, he sent a notice to the plaintiff informing that he is not ready to execute the sale-deed . The plaintiff had sent reply to the said notice. The defendant did not execute the sale-deed even though the notice was issued to the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff has instituted the suit for specific performance of the contract.

3. The defendants resisted the suit. The defendants denied the allegations made by the plaintiff. It is the contention of the defendants that defendant no.1 is a person who is more than 70 years of age. He has no power of understanding. Taking undue advantage of this, the plaintiff played fraud on defendant no.1. The agreement was never readover to the defendant. The defendant did not consult his sons. The land is a Kotwal Dunga land which was given to defendant no.1 by the Government. This fact was known to the plaintiff. The said land could not be sold without permission of the Government. It is contended that therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree for specific performance. It is further contended that the price as offered by the plaintiff is too inadequate. The plaintiff not being agriculturist is also not entitled to decree for specific performance.

4. On these pleadings, the learned judge of the trial court framed issues and found that there was an agreement between the parties. The plaintiff had performed his part of contract and was ready and willing to perform his part of contract. He found that the agreement was not obtained by practicing any kind of fraud or undue influence on defendant no.1. Holding so, he granted a decree for specific performance of the contract upon obtaining permission from the Collector. Being aggrieved by that judgment and decree, this appeal has been preferred.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent.

6. The following point arise for my consideration, upon the submission made by the learned counsel.

Whether the learned judge of the lower court rightly exercised the discretion in favour of the plaintiff ? .. ..................... .. Yes.

R E A S O N S

7. It may be mentioned that the learned counsel for the appellants urged only one ground before this court i.e. in respect of discretion used by the learned judge of the trial court. According to the