No relief of specific performance can be granted to party making specific performance.

V. Kanagaraj, J.:

1. The defendant in the suit in O.S.No.131 of 1981 has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 19.1.1996 made in A.S.No.737 of 1984 thereby confirming the judgment and decree dated 7.8.1984 made by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Tiruppattur.

2. It is a suit filed by the respondent herein for specific performance of a contract dated 25.6.1981 alleged to have been executed in between the appellant and the respondent thereby the appellant agreeing to sell the suit property in favour of the respondent for a sale consideration of Rs.31,000, and on payment of an advance amount of Rs.15,000 and on further agreement that in four months time, that is within 25.10.1981, on payment of the balance sale consideration of Rs.14,000, by the respondent/plaintiff, the appellant/defendant should come forward to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff.

3. The further case of the plaintiff is that prior to the suit agreement, there had been yet another agreement entered into in between the parties on 2.1.1981 in respect of the same property on similar terms and conditions and on receipt of a sum of Rs.10,000 as advance and since the defendant did not come forward to execute the sale deed as per the terms and conditions of the said agreement, the plaintiff approached the defendant and requested to execute a fresh agreement in respect of the same property and as further agreed on payment of a further sum of Rs.5,000 in cash to the defendant, on the date of suit agreement and adjusting the advance amount of Rs.10,000 paid under earlier agreement dated 2.1.1981 for the sale consideration, the suit agreement dated 25.6.1981 was entered into when it was agreed that in four months time, on payment of the balance sale consideration by the plaintiff, the defendant should execute the sale deed in her favour; that in spite of the plaintiff being ready and willing to get the sale registered in her favour on payment of the balance sale consideration, since the defendant did not comply with the same, a notice dated 23.10.1981 had been issued for which the defendant replied on 2.11.1981, but never complied with the agreement, and hence, the suit for specific performance of the contract.

4. On the part of the defendant, she would submit that in accordance with the earlier agreement dated 2.1.1981 since the plaintiff did not come forward to get the sale registered in her favour in time as agreed on payment of the balance sale consideration of Rs.21,000, the defendant returned the advance amount of Rs.10,000 already paid to her as per the first agreement dated 2.1.1981 and the plaintiff also returned the said sale agreement deed and it was only for the default committed on the part of the plaintiff, the sale deed was not executed; that the plaintiff created the suit agreement dated 25.6.1981 by forging the signature of the defendant; that the defendant never signed the suit agreement at all, nor her husband attested the same; that the plaintiff cannot claim any right under a forged document; that the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and hence, is not entitled to the discretionary relief of specific performance and would pray for dismissing the suit.

5. On these pleadings, the trial court that is the Court of Subordinate Judge, Tiruppattur, has framed five issues, viz., (i) Whether the agreement dated 2.1.1981 was cancelled. (ii) Whether the agreement dated 25.6.1981 is true, valid and binding on the defendant. (iii) Whether for specific performance of the agreement dated 25.6.1981, for the reasons assigned on the part of the defendant, is not the plaintiff entitled to the relief sought for. (iv) Whether the agreement dated 25.6.1981 is a fabricated one. and (v) What relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to.

6. For determination of these issues framed, the trial court has conducted the trial in which, on the part of the plaintiff, besides examining herself as P.W.1, sh