The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the plaintiff to prove the execution of the agreement of sale, payment of consideration, and continuous readiness and willingness for specific performance. Additionally, the judgment emphasizes the protection of subsequent bona fide purchasers under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree dated 18.2.2021 passed in A.S.No.50 of 2017 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Vellore @ Ranipet reversing the Judgment and decree dated 20.7.2016 passed in O.S.No.82 of 2014 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Arakkonam.)

1. Second defendant in the suit, who suffered a decree of specific performance passed by the first appellate court while reversing the finding of the Trial Court, is the appellant in the present Second Appeal.

2. The Second Appeal came to be admitted on 5.8.2021 on the following substantial questions of law:-

(i) Whether the Lower Appellate Court was right in granting an equitable remedy for Specific Performance, when it is well settled law that the relief of Specific performance of Contract is equitable remedy and discretionary remedy of Court passing it, the relief shall have not been granted to a person who came to Court with unclean hands?

(ii) Whether the Lower Appellate Court was right in granting a relief of Specific Performance of Contract, when it is well settled proposition of Law that the plaintiff who sought a relief of Specific performance or contract, mandatorily has to prove his readiness and willingness from the date of Agreement till execution of Sale Deed irrespective of time fixed for performance in the Agreement of Sale?

(iii) Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right to granting a relief of Specific Performance ignoring Law that as per Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, the Court is not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so?

3. The case of the first respondent/plaintiff, in brief, is as under:-

i) The schedule property is belonged to the 1st defendant. An agreement of sale was entered on 18.07.2005 between the plaintiff and the first defendant in respect of the the suit property for a sale consideration of Rs.2,06,125/- on receipt of an advance amount of Rs.15,000/- by the first defendant with an arrangement that the plaintiff had to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,91,125/- within three months from the date of Sale agreement. Time was not made as essence of the contract. The father of the 1st defendant, namely Subramania Reddy was also one of the attestors to the sale agreement.

ii) Subsequently, the 1st defendant's father received a sum of Rs.35,000/- from the plaintiff on 13.08.2005 and another sum of Rs.10,000/- on 27.8.2005 towards part of sale consideration by affixing his Left Thumb impression on the verso of the said agreement of sale on behalf of the first defendant and thus, the plaintiff has totally paid Rs.60,000/- to the first defendant.

iii) The plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration and get the sale deed executed in his name, but the first defendant was protracting the same with ulterior motives. Ultimately, on 29.05.2006, the plaintiff came to know that the first defendant has created a false and vexatious sale deed dated 9.5.2006 in respect of the suit properties in favour of the 2nd defendant colluding with him to defraud the plaintiff.

iv) The plaintiff obtained a certified copy of the sale deed dated 9.5.2006 alleged to have been executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant and found that it was executed for a low price of Rs.1,70,000/-.

v) Having aggrieved over the same, the plaintiff had issued a legal notice on 03.06.2006 to the defendants demanding them to execute a registered sale deed as per the suit sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants, though received the notice, they did not send any reply to the plaintiff and thereby the plaintiff has come up with the suit.

4. A written statement was filed by the first defendant, which was adopted by the second defendant, contending as under:-

i) The allegation that the first defendant had entered into a S