The plaintiff seeking specific performance must demonstrate good faith, financial wherewithal, and readiness to perform the contract, in accordance with Sections 16 and 20 of the Specific Relief Act.

Animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Coimbatore in O.S.No.632 of 2007, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal.

2. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. Compendiously and concisely, the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this appeal would run thus:

(i) The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance seeking the following reliefs including the alternative relief:

- to pass a decree and judgment

a) directing the defendants to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff on receiving the balance sale consideration within a time to be stipulated by this Court and on their failure to do so, this Court may execute the sale deed on behalf of the defendants.

(OR)

b) in the alternative directing the defendants to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of suit till date of realisation.

c) directing the defendants to pay cost of the suit.

(extracted as such)

(ii) The gist and kernel, the pith and marrow of the averments in the plaint would run thus:

Ex.A3, the agreement to sell emerged between the plaintiff on the one hand and D1 through her power agent/husband-D2, on the other hand; whereby, the latter agreed to sell in favour of the former the property described in the schedule of the plaint for a total sale consideration of Rs.12,50,000/- and a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-was paid as advance by the proposed purchaser to the proposed seller. As per the terms and conditions therein, the seller on or before 27.06.2007 should make arrangements in such a manner that they should be ready to sell the property in favour of the plaintiff, on receipt of the remaining sale consideration. However, there was no positive step taken by the defendants in performing their part of the contract. Whereupon, the plaintiff vide Ex.A5 notice dated 30.06.2007 called upon the defendants to come forward to execute the sale deed. However, the defendants would claim to have sent the telegraphic notice on 02.07.2007 as though all along they had been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and they blamed the plaintiff for the alleged delay and unilaterally cancelled the said agreement to sell. Wherefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for specific performance.

(iii) It so happened that R2/D2 filed the counter in I.A.No.695 of 2007; thereafter, instead of filing the written statement, a memo was filed by D1 and D2 adopting the counter, as written statement; the gist and kernel of it would run thus:

Suppressing the material facts, the plaint was filed. In fact anterior to the suit agreement-Ex.A3, there emerged as many as three agreements to sell as contained in Exs.B1, B2 and B3 between the same parties virtually, but with certain changes in the name of the purchasers. The plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform her part of the contract and in fact, she was not having the financial wherewithal to purchase the properties. In order to camouflage and conceal her own drawback and her inability to perform her part of the contract, she did choose to issue the notice. The plaintiff did not approach the court with clean hands and accordingly her prayer for specific performance should be dismissed and ultimately, the suit also was to be dismissed.

(iv) The trial court framed the relevant issues.

(v) Up went the trial, wherein the plaintiff examined herself as PW1 along with P.Ws.2 to 4 and marked Exs.A1 to A9. On the defendants' side D2-examined himself as DW1 along with D.W2 and marked Exs.B1 to B8.

(vi) Ultimately, the trial court dismissed the prayer of the plaintiff for specific performance; however, the suit was decreed ordering refund of the advance amount with 18% interest per annum.

4. Being aggrie