The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle that both the plaintiff and defendant should approach the court with clean hands in suits for specific performance and should not be guilty of suppression of material facts.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C against the judgment and decree passed dated 02.09.2006 passed in A.S.No.42 of 2006 on the file of Principal District Court, Salem in confirming the judgment and decree dated 17.04.2006 passed in O.S.No.60 of 2004 on the file of the Sub-Court, Mettur.)

1.The unsuccessful 1st defendant in a suit for Specific Performance of an agreement of sale is the appellant.

2. The 1st respondent as plaintiff,filed a suit for Specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 02.09.2004. It is the case of the plaintiff that the 1st defendant is the owner of the suit property and that she had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the plaintiff’s father-in-law i.e, the 2nd defendant on 01.09.2004 and that in pursuance of the said Power of Attorney, the 2nd defendant, representing the 1st defendant,executed a registered sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff. The sale consideration for the suit property was fixed at Rs.1,50,000/-and according to the plaintiff, even on the date of the agreement a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid. The balance sale consideration of Rs.50,000/- was agreed to be paid within a period of 3 years. The plaintiff paid the balance sum of Rs.50,000 on 04.09.2004 for which the 2nd defendant also issued a receipt on the same day. It was agreed that the 2nd defendant would execute the sale deed on 14.09.2004, being a new moon day. The 2nd defendant also handed over the receipt issued by the 1stdefendant for the entire sale consideration of Rs.1,50,000/-, evidencing the fact that the entire sale consideration was paid to the 1st defendant by the 2nd defendant. Subsequently, the plaintiff met the 1st defendant in person and called upon her to come for registration on 14.09.2004 and according to the plaintiff, the 1st defendant also confirmed the fact that she had received the sale consideration from the 2nd defendant in full and agreed to come to the registrar’s office. However, since the 1st defendant did not turn up as promised, the plaintiff was constrained to issue a notice to the defendants on 17.09.2004. On receipt of the said notice, the 1st defendant issued a telegram to the plaintiff’s counsel on 22.09.2004 stating that she had already cancelled the Power of Attorney and therefore she would not be in a position to comply with the plaintiff’s demand. The plaintiff has approached the court seeking Specific performance, immediately thereafter, by instituting the suit which is the subject matter of the Second Appeal.

3. The 1st defendant filed a written statement stating that the 1st defendant was not the sole owner of the suit property which was ancestral in nature and consequently her son and daughter also have a right in the same. The 1st defendant denied the execution of Power of Attorney in favour of the 2nd defendant, authorising the 2nd defendant to deal with the suit property. The 1st defendant had specifically pleaded that she approached the 2nd defendant for a loan and while borrowing a sum of Rs.5,000/-, her thumb impression was obtained at the Sub-Registrar’s Office and she executed the alleged agreement of sale without knowing the contents of the document. The 1st defendant also stated that the Power of Attorney was itself obtained by the 2nd defendant by foul means and therefore there was no question of the 1st defendant becoming answerable to the plaintiff in respect of the sale agreement that was executed by the 2nd defendant,on the strength of the said Power of Attorney. The 1st defendant also had stated that she had not received any money from the 2nd defendant as alleged in the plaint. Moreover, according to the 1st defendant that there is no necessity for the defendant to sell the property and on such pleadings, the 1st defendant sought for dismissal of the suit.

4. The 2nd defendant filed a separate written statement stating that the agreement of sale was valid and genuine and that the entire sale consideration was transferred to the 1st