A plaintiff seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale must come to court with clean hands and must disclose the true nature of the consideration for the agreement.

1. Defendants are the appellants herein. The averments in the plaint are briefly as follows:— The suit house belongs to the first defendant. The second defendant had transaction with the plaintiff and a sum of Rs. 35,000/- was due from the 2nd defendant to the plaintiff. Defendants 1 and 2 agreed to sell the suit house to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 47,000/- and executed an agreement for the same on 4.10.1980. Out of the sale consideration, the sum of Rs. 35,000/- which was already due from the second d efendant was agreed to be adjusted. A sum of Rs. 3,500/- was paid on the date of agreement as advance and a sum of Rs. 8,500/- was to be paid at the time of registration of the document. Time fixed for completion of the sale deed is by one year. The defendants have not executed the sale deed as agreed in spite of the notice issued by the plaintiff. But they have sent a reply containing false allegations. Hence the suit.

2. In the written statement it is stated as follows:— The second defendant owed a sum of Rs. 47,886/- to the plaintiff while acting as agent of the plaintiff. He repaid Rs. 17,000/- and there was a balance of Rs. 20,853.84 due from the second defendant to the plaintiff, after adjusting Commission, lorry charges, etc. The allegation that a sum of Rs. 35,000/- was due from the second defendant to the plaintiff, that Rs. 3,500/- was paid by the plaintiff as advance are not true. Out of compulsion and coercio n made by the plaintiff, the defendants 1 and 2 have executed a security agreement in respect of the house toward the amount due and payable by the second defendant. The defendants have not entered into an agreement of sale The property is worth more than Rs. 1,25,0000/-. plaintiff is therefore not entitled to the relief of specific performance.

3. On the above pleadings, the trial court accepted that the defendants have entered into agreement of sale with the plaintiff and the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but not defendants and, therefore, granted a decree for specific performance in favour of the plaintiff, fixing a time limit of two months for the first defendant to execute the sale deed. Aggrieved over the same, the defendants have come forward with this appeal.

4. The plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 4.10.1980 in which the defendants are said to have agreed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property, for a sum of Rs. 47,000/-. The plaintiffs further case is that out of the sale consideration of Rs. 47,000/-, Rs. 35,000/- was adjusted towards the amount already due to him from the second defendant who was having business transaction with him. The second defendant would contend t hat there was a balance due to the plaintiff from him but he has paid Rs. 17,000/- and there was a balance of Rs. 20,853.84/- alone remained to be paid and the version of the plaintiff that Rs. 35,000/- was due is not correct. P.W. 1 in cross-examination has stated that he is having “Thari” in Namakkal and he had transaction with the second defendant regarding the same and he is having accounts for the same. It is specifically admitted by him that there are accounts maintained by him which would show th at a sum of Rs. 35,000/- was due by the second defendant to him. The payment of Rs. 17,000/- by the second defendant to him is not disputed by the plaintiff. But he would contend that originally, a sum of Rs. 52,000/- was due from the second defendant to the plaintiff and after the payment of Rs. 17,000/- by the second defendant, a sum of Rs. 35,000/- has become due. It is thus seen that both the plaintiff and the second defendant are not agreeable with regard to the actual amount payable by the second defendant to the plaintiff. The plaintiff having come to court with the version that a sum of Rs. 35,000/- is due to him from the second defendant, he has to prove the same by the best evidence availa