A party seeking specific performance must have clean hands; failure to disclose subsequent agreements does not negate execution of prior decrees, provided timelines for compliance are met.

ORDER :

P.B.BALAJI, J.

These revision petitions arise out of orders passed in a suit for specific performance, in Execution Proceedings.

2. The revision in CRP. No.41 of 2017 arises out of dismissal of an Application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ( in short 'Specific Relief Act') seeking rescission of the contract. All the other revisions are arising only out of consequential orders and hence, if CRP. No.41 of 2017 is decided, the result of the same would have a direct impact on the other revisions as well.

3. I have heard Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.C.V.Vijaya Kumar & Ms.A.B.Reehana Begum, learned counsel for Petitioner in CRP. Nos.3456, 3548, 3549 & 3553 of 2025/ for Respondents in CRP. Nos.41 of 2017, 1692 & 1693 of 2018 and 1062 of 2025. Mr.V.Raghavachari, leraned Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Indrajith, learned counsel for Respondents in CRP. Nos.3456, 3548, 3549 & 3553 of 2025 / for Petitioners in CRP. Nos.41 of 2017, 1692 & 1693 of 2018 and 1062 of 2025.

4. The brief facts of the case as follows:

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as judgment debtors and decree holder. The judgement debtor entered into a sale agreement with the decree holder in respect of an extent of 1.64 acres situate in Vanagaram Village on 14.05.1992. The decree holder filed a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.21 of 1994 to enforce the said sale agreement against the judgment debtor. After contest, the suit was decreed and the judgment debtor preferred A.S. No.302 of 2000. In the meantime, in a partition suit filed the judgment debtor's sister in O.S. No.148 of 1990, including the subject 1.64 acres, a preliminary decree came to be passed on 18.06.2003 and a final decree application was filed by the said sister of the judgment debtor in I.A. No.55 of 2007. The decree holder sought to implead himself in I.A. No.55 of 2007, in order to claim the judgment debtor's share in the partition suit. While matters stood there, the decree holder entered into a fresh sale agreement with the judgment debtor agreeing to pay an additional Rs.2,10,00,000/-, as sale consideration. In view of the subsequent sale agreement, the judgment debtor withdrew A.S. No.302 of 2000 on 18.08.2008. The decree holder also withdrew his cross objection.

5. The decree holder filed E.P. No.63 of 2009 without disclosing the judgment in the partition suit and the sale agreement entered into afresh on 30.07.2008, in and whereby, the decree holder had committed to pay an additional sum of Rs.2,10,00,000/-. The judgment debtor filed an Application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in E.A. No.29 of 2010. The said Application was dismissed on 15.09.2010 directing the decree holder to deposit a sum of Rs.2,10,00,000/-. In the meantime, I.A. No.55 of 2007 filed by the judgment debtor’s sister was allowed on 29.03.2010, allotting 62 cents of land to the judgment debtor’s sister in S.No.131/1b. Second Appeal was preferred as against the final decree proceedings in the year 2014 and status quo was ordered by this Court. As against the Applications in the Execution Petition in the suit for specific performance, CRP Nos.142 of 2012 and 3249 of 2013 came to be disposed of by a common order dated 20.03.2015, directing the decree holder to deposit Rs.2,10,00,000/-. In furtherance of the said common order, on 03.08.2015, the decree holder deposited the said sum of Rs.2,10,00,000/-.

6.Challenging the said common order dated 20.03.2015 in the revision petitions, the judgment debtor preferred S.L.P. No.30401 of 2015, which came to be dismissed on 02.11.2015. It is thereafter that E.A.No.197 of 2016 came to be filed by the judgment debtor un