The plaintiff's failure to demonstrate readiness and willingness, approach the court with unclean hands, and unilaterally alter the agreement led to the dismissal of the appeal.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Appeal Suit is filed under Order 41 Rule r/w Section 96 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 23.06.2015 passed in O.S.No.57 of 2006, on the file of I Additional District Court, Tirunelveli.

1. Aggrieved over the dismissal of the suit filed for specific performance, the present appeal came to be filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein, as per their own ranking before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts, leading to the filing of this Appeal, are as follows:-

3.1. The defendants 1 to 3 are the owners of the property. The first defendant agreed to sell her undivided half share in favour of the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.9,60,000/- and executed a unregistered sale agreement on 31.05.2006, and the 1st defendant has received a sum of Rs.10,000/- as advance and it was agreed between the parties that the time for stipulation for the contract is three months. Thereafter on 05.08.2006, the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.1 laksh as further advance to the first defendant. Similarly, the defendants 2 and 3 also executed an agreement on 31.05.2006 in respect of their undivided share of the suit property, for a total sale consideration of Rs.9,60,000/- and received Rs.1 lakh as advance and they have also agreed to complete the sale within a period of three months. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. However, the defendants 1 to 3 are evading to perform their part of contract. Hence, the plaintiff, issued a legal notice on 21.08.2006 and also publication on 23.08.2006. Even after, the defendants 1 to 3 have evaded to execute the sale deed. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants 1 to 3 also deposited the original deed in respect of the suit properties. On 08.09.2006, the defendants issued a reply notice with false averment stating that they already entered into an agreement with the 4th defendant on 15.05.2006 for a total sale consideration of Rs.19,20,000/- and received a sum of Rs.10,000/- as advance. If the 4th defendant is failed to perform his part of the contract, then only plaintiff is entitled to get the property. Accordingly, the property has been sold to the 4th defendant on 25.08.2006. Hence, the suit.

4. The defendants 1 to 3 have filed a statement admitting that they have already executed an agreement in favour of the 4th defendant on 15.05.2006 for sale of suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.19,20,000/- and the time for completion of contract is four months. It is also admitted that the suit agreement was also executed only on the condition that when the fourth defendant is not able to perform his part of contract, the sale will be made in favour of the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff has not paid the amount. In the meanwhile, the 4th defendant paid the entire amounts and also cleared the mortgage loan. Therefore, the sale deed has been executed in favour of the 4th defendant. According to the defendants 1 to 3, plaintiff was also aware of the agreement entered between the 4th defendant on 15.05.2006. 4th defendant is the bona fide purchaser and he has also made improvement by spending Rs.2,50,000/-. Plaintiff was also aware of the earlier contract. Hence, the plaintiff was never ready and willing to pay the amount. In the additional written statement, it is the contention of the defendants 1 to 3 that the suit agreement has been materially acted and the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands.

5. The 4th defendant has filed a written statement, denying the agreement made in favour of the plaintiff and he admitted that he has entered an agreement on 15.05.2006 in respect of the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs. 19,20,000/- and paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- as an advance and he has also cleared the mortgage loan of Rs.7,30,000/- of the defendants. The plaintiff was also aware of those documents. After purchasi