Specific performance is discretionary under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and the plaintiff must prove genuine intention to execute a sale deed.

1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, passed in A.S.No.77 of 2006, dated 31.7.2006, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Mannargudi, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 5.12.2005, made in O.S.No.110 of 2004, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Mannargudi.

2. The plaintiff in the suit, in O.S.No.110 of 2004, is the appellant in the present second appeal. The defendants in the suit are the respondents herein. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale, dated 25.3.2001, marked as Ex.A-1. It has been stated that the plaint schedule property belonged to the defendants. The defendants had agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff, by an agreement, dated 25.3.2001, for the sale consideration of Rs.35,000/-. On the same day, when the sale agreement had been entered into, the entire sale consideration had been paid by the plaintiff. Since, the defendants had not executed the sale deed, as per the agreement of sale, dated 25.3.2001, the plaintiff had issued a legal notice to the defendants, on 27.10.2003, calling upon the defendants to execute the sale deed. Since, the defendants had not come forward to execute the sale deed, in spite of having received the notice, the plaintiff had filed the suit, in O.S.No.110 of 2004, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Mannargudi.

3. In the written statement filed on behalf of the defendants, the claims made by the plaintiff had been denied. It had been stated that, as the first defendant was in dire need of money, he had approached the plaintiff for a loan of Rs.60,000/-. Thereafter, due to the misunderstanding that had arisen between the plaintiff and the first defendant, a police complaint had been lodged by the plaintiff. Thereafter, there was a compromise between the first defendant and the plaintiff. As per the compromise, the first defendant had to pay the entire loan amount, on 25.3.2001. All the defendants had been asked to sign on blank stamp papers.

4. Even though the first defendant had settled the entire amount due to the plaintiff, the signed blank papers had not been returned. As there was dispute between the plaintiff’s family and the defendants’ family, the defendants had lodged a police complaint. Only to take revenge on the defendants, by using the blank stamp papers, the plaintiff had created a false sale agreement. Therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff is based on a fraudulent sale agreement, and as the plaintiff had not come before this Court with clean hands, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

5. Based on the averments made on behalf of the plaintiff, as well as the defendants, the trial Court had framed the following issues for consideration:

“1) Whether the defendants had agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.35,000/- and executed a sale agreement, on 25.3.2001, after receiving the entire sale consideration?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance of the sale agreement, dated 25.3.2001, entered into with the defendants?

3) To what relief”

6. On the side of the plaintiff P.W.1 to P.W.4 had been examined. Documents Exs.A-1 to A-5 had been marked. On the side of the defendants D.W.1 to D.W.10 had been examined. Documents Exs.B-1 to B-5 had been marked.

7. The trial Court had found from Ex.B-2 that the first defendant had borrowed Rs.60,000/- from the plaintiff, on 15.7.2000. From Ex.B-3 it had been found that the first defendant had executed the confirmation deed in favour of the plaintiff, in the presence of the panchayatdars and it had also been found that he had promised to discharge the loan amount of Rs.60,000/- borrowed, as per Ex.B-2, on 25.3.2001. D.W.1 had been examined to prove that the first defendant had borrowed the money, as per Ex.B-2, and that he had executed the document, marked as Ex.B-3. D.W.2 to D.W.10, the attesting witnesses of Exs.B-2 and Ex.B-3 had also been examined. Th