Plaintiff not entitled for any relief because of coming to court with unclean hands.

A. Raman, J.

This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff, who lost his case in the lower appellate court. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement dated 10. 1970 on the following allegations. The defendant agreed to sell the property to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.31,000 and an agreement was executed between the parties on 10. 1979 and an advance of Rs.22,000 was paid on that date. The possession was also handed over to the plaintiff. As per the condition of the agreement, the defendant has to obtain permission from the Urban Land Ceiling Authority. The defendant has to produce the No Encumbrance Certificate as well. The sale was to be executed within two months from the date of permission. The defendant has produced the application for permission to sell and it was signed by the plaintiff. It was submitted to the authority. The defendant thereafter did not come forward to execute the sale deed. The defendant did not carry out the terms of the agreement. The plaintiffs approach and attempt failed. The plaintiff has deposited Rs.9,000 in U.C.O Bank, Pondichery. The defendant is evading to execute the sale deed. The plaintiff understands that the defendant is negotiate to sell the properties to some 3rd parties. Hence the plaintiff caused publications in the newspapers. The plaintiff also submitted letters of objections to the concerned Sub-Registrar. The plaintiff gave a notice through his lawyer on 21. 1981, expressing his willingness and readiness to purchase the property and calling upon the defendant to execute the same. Though the defendant received the notice, but she did not reply. Hence this suit.

2. The defendant contended as follows:Originally there was an agreement to sell the property in the year 1978 for a sum of Rs.34,000 and the plaintiff paid an advance of Rs.10,000 for discharging the mortgage over the property. Subsequently on various dates till 10. 1979, when the second agreement was entered into, a sum of Rs.12,000 was paid and thus in all Rs.22,000 was paid by the plaintiff. The defendant agreed to obtain No Objection Certificate from the Urban Land Ceiling Authority and in fact an application was submitted in the month of October, 1979, but the authority did hot grant permission for the sale. The plaintiff is aware of the same. As the permission was not given, the defendant could not perform the contract.

3. The Government has acquired a portion of the property namely 10 Are. and 10 Centiares in Survey No.1168/2. The plaintiff, on coming to know of the Same, asked the defendant for the return of advance amount and the defendant agreed to pay the same

in two instalments. Later, he went back on the agreement and issued notice on 21. 1981. The defendant could not perform her part of the Contract without permission of the Competent Authority and due to act of State, the defendant is prepared to pay back the advanced.

4. Before the Second Additional Sub Judge, Pondicherry the plaintiff examined P.Ws.l to 3 and Exs.A-1 to A-15 were marked. On the side of the defendant, five witnesses were examined while Ex.D-1 to D-4 were marked. The learned Second Additional Sub Judge, Pondicherry decreed the suit. The defendant preferred an appeal in the High Court in A.S.No.856 of 1982. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by judgment dated 29. 1994, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. Thus the present appeal.;

5. The points that arise for determination are:

.(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the agreement?

.(2) Whether the contract become impossible of performance?

THE POINTS: The execution of the agreement of sale, which is marked as Ex.A-1 is not disputed. The fact remains that there was already an agreement of sale between the parties. The said agreement came into existence on 12. 1978 whereby the defendant agreed to sell the property for Rs.34,000 and on that date, a sum of Rs.10,000 was paid by the plaintiff as advance