Key Points: - The judgment addresses whether a suit for specific performance is barred under Section 16(b) of the Specific Relief Act when the plaintiff acted in fraud of the agreement and wilfully acted at variance with it (!) . - The court held that the plaintiff's actions constituted a subversion of the relation intended to be established by the agreement/contract (!) . - The plaintiff filed objections in proceedings for the grant of a bhumidhari sanad to deny the title of 'J', which was a key factor in the case (!) . - Substantial questions of law were decided against the respondents in this matter (!) . - The judgment refers to the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Sections 16(1), 16(b), and 16(c)) and the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Section 41) (!) .

What is the legal position regarding whether a suit for specific performance is barred under Section 16(b) of the Specific Relief Act when the plaintiff acts in fraud of the agreement and at variance with it?

What are the rights of parties when a plaintiff files objections in proceedings for the grant of a bhumidhari sanad to deny the title of another party, thereby subverting the relation intended by an agreement?

What is the interpretation of Sections 16(1), 16(b), and 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, in the context of an agreement for sale?