Specific performance requires clean hands and substantial compliance; equitable relief is denied when parties engage in unfair practices.

JUDGMENT :

G.R. SWAMINATHAN, J.

1. The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant in this second appeal. O.S.No.14 of 2011 on the file of the Sub Court, Kovilpatti was filed for specific performance. According to the plaintiff, the defendants and himself entered into a registered sale agreement on 16.04.2008. As per the terms of the agreement, the sale consideration was fixed at Rs.9,90,000/-. Rs.7,00,000/- was paid as advance. Three months was fixed for performance of the agreement. While so, on 21.10.2008, the defendants sent legal notice revoking the sale agreement. Thereupon, the plaintiff issued reply notice on 04.11.2008. The suit came to be filed on 23.03.2009. The balance amount of Rs.2,90,000/- was deposited to the credit of the suit on 11.4.2009. The defendants filed written statement controverting the plaint averments. The defendants also filed additional written statement in which it was stated that there was an unregistered sale agreement executed on 16.04.2008 itself and that the actual sale consideration was Rs.38,00,000/-. The defendants contended that the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands. The defendants however conceded that a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- was received as advance and that the balance amount of Rs.23,00,000/- has to be deposited. Based on the rival pleadings, the trial court framed the necessary issues. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1. One Rathinasamy/attestor of the suit agreement was examined as P.W.2. Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 were marked. The first defendant examined himself as D.W.1. Ex.B1 to Ex.B7 were marked. After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 30.01.2014 dismissed the suit and denied the relief of specific performance. The defendants were however directed to refund the advance amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- with 12% interest. Questioning the same, the plaintiff filed A.S. No. 14 of 2015. The first appellate Court vide Judgement and decree dated 07.04.2014 dismissed the appeal but held that the plaintiff was entitled to withdraw the amount of Rs.2,90,000/- deposited by him in the Court towards the balance sale consideration. Challenging the same, the present second appeal has been filed.

2. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

“(a) When the Court below have concurrently held that the appellant had proved the suit registered agreement of sale dated 16.04.2003 and when the respondents / defendants did not question the financial capacity of the appellant, whether the rejection of the relief of specific performance by the courts below is sustainable merely on the ground of non-production of documentary evidence to establish the readiness and willingness?

(b) When the appellant has done substantial compliance of the contract and the dismissal in capable of performance, whether the dismissal of the suit is proper?

(c) When the suit agreement dated 16.04.2008 marked as Ex.A2 consist of reciprocal promises to be simultaneously performed and when the respondent is not ready and willing to perform his reciprocal promise by clearing the encumbrances and vacate the suit house property, whether the courts below are correct in holding that the appellant is not ready and willing to perform his contract?”

During previous hearing, the following additional substantial question of law was framed:-

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled to refund of any additional amount apart from the sum of Rs.7,00,000/-?”

3. The relief of specific performance is an equitable relief. The plaintiff approached the court with a specific stand that the total sale consideration was Rs.9,90,000/- and that he already paid the advance amount of Rs.7,00,000/- and that he is entitled to take the sale deed by calling upon the defendants to accept the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,90,000/-. The defendants in the written statement claimed that on 16.04.2008, when the suit agreement was executed and registered, an unregistered agreement was also ex