A plaintiff seeking specific performance must approach the court with clean hands and prove readiness to perform their part of the contract, failing which relief may be denied.

JUDGMENT

The appellant herein is the 2^nd defendant in the suit in O.S.No.321 of 2010 on the file of II Addl. Subordinate Judge, Erode filed by the 1^st respondent/plaintiff seeking for the relief of specific performance directing the defendants to execute a sale deed by receiving balance sale consideration and other consequential reliefs. The 1^st defendant remained exparte. The 2^nd defendant alone contested the case. On hearing both sides, the trial judge granted the relief of specific performance in favour of plaintiff. Aggrieved over the said findings, the 2^nd defendant preferred an appeal suit in A.S.No.5 of 2012 on the file of II Addl. District Judge, Erode, wherein also the findings of the trial judge was confirmed and the Appeal Suit was dismissed. Challenging the said findings, the 2^nd defendant preferred this Second Appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are addressed as per the ranking in the suit.

3. Brief facts of the case is as follows :- The 1^st defendant is the absolute owner of the suit property with whom, the plaintiff entered into sale agreement to purchase the same for a valid consideration of Rs.6,50,000/- and the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- as advance and within one year, the 1^st defendant is bound to execute the sale deed free of all encumbrances and a notarised sale agreement was executed on 30.01.2005. On the same day itself, the 1^st defendant handed over the xerox copies of parent document and also delivered the possession of suit property as part performance of contract. Again on 24.02.2006 the 1^st defendant received another sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and made endorsement on the back side of the sale agreement. The remaining balance sum of Rs.50,000/- alone was payable by the plaintiff. When the same was informed to the 1^st defendant, he evaded and also attempted to transfer the property in favour of 2^nd defendant, who is his brother. Hence, the plaintiff issued lawyer's notice on 15.11.2006 along with demand drafts for the balance sum of Rs.50,000/-, for which, the 1^st defendant has not given any reply and the 2^nd defendant gave a reply stating that he purchased the property for the valid consideration from his brother through his father viz., power agent on 27.04.2006. But, the said sale claimed by the 2^nd defendant is fraudulent one and collusive in order to defraud the plaintiff and to defeat the terms of sale agreement as agreed by the defendants. Hence, the plaintiff came forward with the suit seeking for the relief of specific performance with alternative relief.

4. In the written statement filed by the 1^st defendant, he admits the sale agreement with the plaintiff and also admits that he had received part of sale consideration on 24.02.2005, but he denied that he is trying to transfer the property in favour of 2^nd defendant and submitted that he was also not aware of the alleged sale deed dated 27.04.2006 said to be executed by his power agent/father Nachimuthu. In fact, his father was bedridden and he had no sound state of mind for the past few years. He also submitted that long back in the year 1973, he executed a power of attorney in favour of his father to maintain the property and the power deed was also been cancelled long back. Therefore, the alleged sale deed relied on by the 2^nd defendant would not bind him nor it is valid one. However, he is ready to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff as per the terms of sale agreement. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the suit.

5. The 2^nd defendant filed