A party seeking specific performance must come to court with clean hands, disqualifying them from relief if false statements are made.

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant in the Second Appeal. The Second Appeal is filed against the confirming judgment of the lower appellate court. 2. The parties will be referred to as per their litigative rank before the trial court.

3. The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from creating any encumbrance in the suit properties in favour of third parties. The plaintiff's case was that the defendants as owners of the suit properties agreed to sell the same to the plaintiff and executed a sale agreement on 14.10.1998. The sale consideration was agreed at Rs.1,90,000/- and an advance of Rs.1,75,000/- was paid on the day of agreement and possession was handed over to the plaintiff by the defendants. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Inspite of the plaintiff's legal notice dated 24.03.1999, the defendants failed to perform their part of the contract and so the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for the aforesaid relief. The written statement was filed by the 1st defendant and adopted by the defendants 2 and 3.

4. The defendants stated that the plaintiff was a stranger to them. They denied the execution of the sale agreement as also handing over of possession to the plaintiff. The defendants stated that in June 1995, they had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from Chitirai Finance company and at that time, the managing director of the company one Venkatachalam obtained signatures of the defendants in blank signed stamp papers, blank promissory notes and unfilled blank cheques. The defendants also handed over the title deeds of the suit properties at that time. The defendants further stated that entire loan amount along with interest was paid by them in 36 installments of Rs.4,380/- and when the defendants approached the said Venkatachalam for return of the blank signed documents, the said Venkatachalam demanded Rs.1,50,000/- and refused to return the documents. The defendants stated that the said Venkatachalam was in the habit of cheating and grabbing people's property. The defendants stated that even at the time of the sale agreement the value of the property was around Rs.5,00,000/- and therefore it was clear that Venkatachalam and the plaintiff conspired and created the suit sale agreement only to defraud the defendants. The defendants therefore prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. The trial court framed relevant issues and on consideration of the same dismissed the suit on its findings that the plaintiff failed to prove that the suit sale agreement was valid. The trial court found that the suit sale agreement was created on the basis of the documents obtained as security for the loan. The trial court also found that the plaintiff had failed to establish that he was ever ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. On appeal by the plaintiff to the lower appellate court, the lower appellate court after framing the points for consideration confirmed the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal holding that the contradictions in the evidence of the plaintiff proved that the suit agreement was not genuine and valid and further the plaintiff had failed to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. The lower appellate court also non suited the plaintiff for approaching the Court with unclean hands and suppressing material facts. Aggrieved by the concurrent judgment of the Courts below, the plaintiff has filed the above Second Appeal.

6. At the time of admission, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Courts below erred in their finding that the suit sale agreement was not genuine. The learned counsel submitted that the court's below failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective, that the Courts below exaggerated the minor discrepancies in the oral evidence of the plaintiffs side for concluding that the suit agreement was no