The court has the discretion to grant specific performance, and a plaintiff's lack of readiness and willingness, false pleadings, and failure to withdraw cases as agreed can disentitle them to the decree.

PRABHA SRIDEVAN, J

The second respondent/first defendant owned the suit property. The appellant / second defendant claims to have purchased the property bona fide on 22-04-1982. Ex-B4 is the sale deed and Ex-B5 is the sale agreement dated 25-11-1981 that is said to have preceded it. On the other hand, the first respondent/plaintiff claims to be entitled to specific performance of the sale agreement Ex-A7 dated 06-02-1982, between her and the first defendant. The first defendant after filing the written statement remained ex parte. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the learned Single Judge granted a decree.

2. According to the plaint, on 03-08-1981, an agreement was entered into between the first defendant and the husband of the plaintiff for conveying the suit property for a price of Rs.24,410/-. A notice dated 1.1.1982 was issued by the plaintiff's husband and a suit was filed. Other suits for injunction and other reliefs were filed by the parties herein against each other. To purchase peace, a Panchayat was convened and the well-wishers of the village persuaded the plaintiff and the first defendant to cancel the agreement dated 03-08-1981 and to enter into a fresh agreement, to purchase the property for a higher consideration. So the suit agreement, Ex-A7 dated 06-02-1982 was entered into. The sale consideration was fixed at Rs.37,500/- and a sum of Rs.5,000/- is alleged to have been received as advance.

3. Further according to the plaintiff, she was put in possession of the property in part performance of the agreement and permission was given to the first defendant to harvest the paddy in existence in the field at the time when the keys of the pump set was handed over to the plaintiff. The defendant is only an agricultural coolie incapable of paying any amount for purchasing a suit property and he was fully aware of the Panchayat and had notice of the same and cannot claim to be a bonafide purchaser without notice of the suit agreement. Since the second defendant trespassed into the property, the suit notice dated 25-04-1982 was issued. There was no response. The suit has been filed.

4. The first defendant, filed his written statement denying the suit agreement, the Panchayat, and that the second defendant is his coolie. According to him, the second defendant is a cultivating tenant in possession of the suit property and the suits filed by him were on his own accord and not in collusion with the first defendant and in any event, possession was never handed over to the plaintiff. The plaintiff and her husband had purchased all the neighbouring lands and therefore with the mala fide intention of knocking off the suit property, Ex.A.7 has been concocted. It was alleged that the plaintiff has not come to Court with clean hands and was not entitled to the discretionary relief of specific performance, and that in any event, she has no case, since if she had, she would have deposited the sale consideration into Court. It is clear that she is dabbling in litigation without any bona fide intention.

5. The second defendant(appellant) also filed his written statement denying the participation in the Panchayat. According to him, he is not an agricultural coolie, but a cultivating tenant in possession of the suit property. He had no notice of Ex.A.7 agreement. The case that the plaintiff was in possession is totally false and the decree should not be granted.

6. The Trial Court found that Ex.A.7 was a genuine agreement. Other issues were held in favour of the defendant. The second defendant was found to be a bonafide purchaser for value without notice and on issue No.7 it was found that possession was not with the plaintiff. The Trial Court dismissed the suit.

7. On appeal, however, the learned single Judge held that the case of the plaintiff, that Ex.B.5 agreement and Ex.B.4 sale deed were born out of collusion between defendants 1 and 2 cannot be brushed aside as an unreasonable one. The discrepancies in the ev