The discretionary nature of specific performance, the requirement for clean hands by the plaintiff, and the need for a fair semblance of title or interest for impleading a third party in a suit for specific performance.

This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 111. 2005 in A.S.No.120 of 2005 on the file of III Additional Sub Court, Coimbatore in reversing the judgment and decree dated 6. 2005 in O.S.No.856 of 1999 on the file of III Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore.

2. The first respondent in the present appeal originally filed a suit for specific performance before the trial court in O.S.No.856 of 1999 against the second respondent.

.3. In the plaint in O.S.No.856 of 1999 it was the case of the first respondent that the property described in the schedule to the plaint absolutely belongs to the second respondent trust and they have allotted site No.46 to him as per agreement dated 1. 1998 and persuaded him to part with a sum of Rs.5,000/- as consideration. In evidence of the said transaction, a receipt was issued by the second respondent. However on 7. 1998 the second respondent informed the first respondent that the price agreed was low and as such they have decided to refund the amount with an idea to sell the property to a third party. The first respondent protested to the said conduct of the second respondent and issued a notice dated 27. 1998 calling upon them to convey the property immediately. To the said notice a reply was sent by the second respondent dated 28. 1998 agreeing to convey the site No.46 but contended that the price had to be paid at the guideline rate. However, according to the first respondent the price for selling the property was fixed on 1. 1998 itself and the amount paid by him was in full and final settlement of the sale value and as such there was no question of payment of guideline value. Since the second respondent failed to execute the document in spite of payment of the entire sale consideration, he was constrained to file the suit for specific performance.

4. The suit was resisted by the second respondent by filing written statement. In the said statement, it was admitted that the second respondent agreed to sell the suit property to the first respondent on 1. 1998. However with regard to the claim that the entire amount was paid on the date of agreement itself, the second respondent contended that the consideration of Rs.5,000/- paid by the first respondent on 1. 1998 was only an advance and the sale was on condition that he should pay the remaining amount on the basis of the guideline rate. The second respondent also contested the claim of the first respondent for exercise of discretion in his favour by decreeing the suit for specific performance. In short the second respondent prayed for dismissal of the suit with exemplary costs.

5. During the pendency of the suit the appellant filed an application to implead him as a party to the suit. In the affidavit filed in support of the application for impleading him as a party, it was the case of the appellant that the suit property has been in his possession and enjoyment right from the year 1977 like other Burma repatriates. It was also his contention that the second respondent had already agreed to sell the property to him and as such he is a necessary party to the suit. The said application was not contested by the first respondent and accordingly the application was allowed and the appellant was impleaded as second defendant in the suit.

6. In the written statement filed by the appellant before the trial court it was his contention that the suit property is situated in Manikavasaga Nagar and the said property having large extent and belonging to the second respondent trust was given to Burma repatriates. The appellant was stated to be in possession of site Nos.45 and 46 from the year 1977 onwards and though the said fact was known to the first respondent, he has been deliberately kept out of the proceedings with a mala fide intention to get the suit property registered in his name. The appellant also contested the claim of the agreement executed by the second respondent in favour of the first respondent