Plaintiff to come to Court with clean hands.

Plaintiff is the appellant. The averments in the amended plaint are briefly as follows: The first defendant is the owner of the suit property having purchased the same on 8. 1995. One A.X. Devadoss, Power of Attorney of the first defendant entered into an agreement with the plaintiff on 4. 1980 for the sale of the suit house for a price of Rs.30,000. A sum of Rs. 10,000 was paid on the same date. The agreement provided, inter alia, that the registration should be completed before 35. 1980 by paying Rs.5,000 to the Power of Attorney and the balance is to be paid directly to the first defendant or her husband or children or to someone who is specially empowered by the first defendant to receive the same. The plaintiff was also put in possession of the property. The Power of Attorney who agreed to produce the title deeds and the encumbrance certificate sought for extension of time for completion of the sale deed, even though the plaintiff was ready to pay Rs.5,000 and conclude the sale. The power of attorney has subsequently issued a notice on 21. 1981 stating that he was ready to execute the sale deed. But the notice is silent with regard to the availability of the title deeds and encumbrance certificate for perusal by the plaintiff. The plaintiff sent a suitable reply and the Power of Attorney has sent a rejoinder also. The Power of Attorney had shown certain documents to the plaintiff, but not the title deeds or the encumbrance certificate. Notices were exchanged between the plaintiff and the power of attorney. The plaintiff was served with a notice on 12. 1981 stating that the property has been sold to the second defendant for Rs.34,000 and calling upon him to vacate. The plaintiff has sent a reply. The plaintiff prays for a decree for specific performance of the agreement for sale or in the alternative for recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,000 paid as advance.

2. Even though the Power of Attorney has filed a written statement, since he was given up his written statement is not given.

3. The first defendant in her written statement contends as follows:

Under the Power of Attorney dated 12. 1978 Devadoss was given the power to look after the house and to sell the property. It was not a general Power of Attorney. Devadoss had no authority, to enter into any agreement for sale. The agreement for sale was vague and indefinite to admit specific performance in a Court of Law. The first defendant is not bound by any undertaking given by her Agent. When the property has been sold in favour of the second defendant, power given to Devadoss had also come to an end. The plaintiff has no money to complete the sale transaction. Devadoss reminded him by a notice dated 21. 1981 and a grace period of ten days was also given to complete the transaction. The second defendant has filed R.C.O.P. No.28 of 1981 before the Rent Controller, Karaikal against the plaintiff. The suit is a counter blast to the said application. The plaintiff has committed default and therefore not entitled to any relief. The suit is liable to be dismissed. The second defendant in her written statement has stated that she is a bona fide purchaser for value.

4. The trial court on the basis of the above pleadings after trial has rendered the judgment granting the relief prayed for by the plaintiff for direction to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000 to the plaintiff. The claim in the suit for specific performance was dismissed by the trial court. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiff has come forward with this appeal.

5. The appellant- plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale which he had entered into with the Power of Attorney of the first defendant for purchasing the suit property for a sum of Rs.30,000. The plaintiff has claimed that even though he was ready and willing to purchase the property, the Power of attorney of the first defendant viz., Devadoss who had agreed to get a special power of attorney and produce the title deeds and ni