Court can refuse specific performance of contract due to defective agreement.

Srinivasan, J.

The plaintiff, whose suit for specific performance has been dismissed, is the appellant herein. The case set out in the plaint is as follows: The properties described in the plaint schedule belonged originally to the first defendant. They were rented out to five persons. The first defendant was himself occupying one portion and run-ninga printing press. As he wanted to augment his income and for that purpose demolish the superstructure and put up a new construction, he approached the plaintiff and the latter agreed that he would finance him provided a lease of the suit properties is granted to the plaintiff. The first defendant agreed to that course and as the building was in a dilapidated stage, he agreed to vacate the tenants and also vacate the portion occupied by him, demolish the entire building and put up new construction and lease out the entire property to the plaintiff. On 12. 1988, an agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the first defendant, which is marked as Ex.A-1. Under the agreedment, the first defendant agreed to evict the tenants within three months and also vacate the portion in his occupation within the said time. He agreed to demolish the existing building and reconstruct a new building. A sum of Rs.50,000 was paid by the plaintiff to the first defendant for the purpose of evicting the tenants and demolishing the existing building. He agreed to receive further amounts from the plaintiff for the expenses to be incurred for demolishing the building and raising a new construction. He agreed to let out the new building to the plaintiff for a rent of Rs.2,000 per mensem. It was also agreed that the rent of Rs.2,000 would be adjusted towards the total amount paid by the plaintiff for a period of five years and thereafter, the first defendant would pay interest for the balance amount payable to the plaintiff at the rate of 24% per annum. The lease would be for a period of ten years after reconstruction and a lease deed would be executed and registered after the reconstruction was over. The plaintiff was informed that a plan had been submitted to the Municipality for approval in March, 1988 for demolition and reconstruction. On 24. 1988 the plaintiff paid a further sum of Rs.50,000 towards expenses for demolition and reconstruction by cash and the same was acknowledged in a pocket note book marked as Ex.A-3 in the handwriting of the first defendant himself. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 1,00,000 had been received by the first defendant. The Municipality sanctioned the plan on 5. 1988. The first defendant evicted the tenants and vacated the portion in his occupation. Only one tenant continued in occupation. The building was almost demolished excepting the portion in the occupation of the aforesaid tenant, who was running a radio repairing shop. At that stage, the first defendant changed his attitude and the plaintiff became apprehensive of the conduct of the first defendant. The plaintiff learnt that defendants 2 to 6 obtained a conveyance of the property from the first defendant and got it registered. Defendants 2 to 6 are not bona fide purchasers as they have been the family auditors for the first defendant for a long period and the latter was always acting on their advice. Even before entering into the lease agreement, the first defendant should have secured the advice of defendants 2 to 6 and from stage to stage, they were advising him. Defendants 2 to 6 are fully aware of the agreement in favour of the plaintiff and in any event, the plaintiff is entitled to enforce his rights under the contract as against all the defendants. The plaintiff had been ready and willing throughout to perform his part of the contract. The plaintiff reserves his right to claim damages from the defendants by separate proceeding. The suit is filed for specific performance of the agreement of lease dated 12. 1988. The prayer in the plaint is to direct the first defendant to execute the lease deed fre