Devan Ramachandran, J.

1. If there will be one case, the facts to which the maxims commodum ex injuria sua non habere debet (convenience cannot accrue to a party from his own wrong) and nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria (no one can obtain an advantage of his own) may be most suitable, it may well be this appeal.

2. The defence built by a defendant in a suit, from which this appeal arises, in answer to a claim made by the plaintiff for specific performance, of an agreement between them to transfer the former's equity shares in a private limited company, is certainly ingenuous and perilously bordering on sheer guile. We say so because the facts involved herein presents the story of a rather bewildering retort, to the claim of the plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement, by the defendant underpinning it on the counter allegation that the agreement is illegal and against public policy but incredulously conceding all the while that he had executed the same knowing it to be contra legum and even contra bono mores, thus pre-arming himself with the legal excuse in not enforcing it and opposing it when it is sought to be enforced against him.

3. We will