LOURDU MARI DAVID Vs. LOUIS CHINNAYA AROGIASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The special leave petition arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras made on 12-6-1996 in LPA No. 72/91. The petitioner had filed O.S. No 6/77 on September 10,1980 before the Second Additional Sub-Judge at Pondicherry for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated October 18, 1976 to convey the property in possession as tenants under the agreement. It is their case that a sum of Rs. 31, 000/- was sale consideration and a sum of Rs. 4,000/- and odd was paid as part consideration. The balance consideration was 28,500/-. He was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but the respondents were avoiding to execute the sale deed. Though the trial Court found that respondent 1 and 2 committed breach of the agreement of sale but denied to them specific performance of the agreement on the ground that respondent No. 3 was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of prior agreement with the petitioner. The petitioner filed the appeal in the High Court. Pending appeal, he died. Therefore, his legal representatives have come on record. The learned single Judge by judgment and decree dated September 11, 1980 agreed with those findings and held that the 3rd respondent was a bona fide purchaser without notice of the agreement. In the impugned judgment, the Division Bench rejected the claim on the additional ground that the plaintiff did not come to the Court with clean hands. Therefore, he is disentitled to relief of the specific performance. Under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. (for short, 'the Act') the decree for specific performance is in the discretion of the Court but the discretion should not be refused arbitrarily. The discretion should be exercised on sound principles of law capable of correction by an appellateCourt.

(2.) It is settled law that the party who seeks to avail of the equitable jurisdiction of a Court and specific performance being equitable relief, must come to the Court with clean hands. In other words the party who makes false allegations does not came with clean hands and is not entitled to the equitable relief. The division Bench has pointed out in the judgment three grounds which disentitle the plaintiff to the equitable relief as he came with a positive case of incorrect and false facts as set out in paragraphs 4 to 6 thus:

(3.) In addition, the Division Bench also agreed with the learned single Judge and held that the third respondent had no knowledge whatever of the plaintiff's agreement and, therefore, he was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. This is a concurrent finding of fact after appreciation of evidence. It would thus be seen that on both the grounds, the courts below rightly refused to exercise the direction on legal principles to grant specific performance. It does not, therefore, warrant interference.