LALITA DEVI Vs. NARMADA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant has filed this First Appeal against the judgment dated 30.01.2009 and the decree following thereupon signed on 05.03.3009 by Sri Srichandra Pathak, the learned Subordinate Judge I, Saharsa in Title Suit No. 47 of 1998 decreeing the plaintiffs-respondents suit for specific performance of contract.

(2.) THE plaintiffs-respondents filed the aforesaid title suit no. 47 of 1998 for a decree for specific performance of contract dated 13.01.1997 and also the plaintiffs prayed for declaration that on receiving advance of Rs.65,000, the defendant executed the deed of agreement dated 13.01.1997 and thereafter, on payment by installment, she had received consideration of Rs.1,85,000 and the plaintiffs were always ready and willing to pay the balance consideration amount.

(3.) MR. V. Nath, appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the plaintiffs-respondents prayed for a decree for specific performance of contract and also prayed for a declaration that the defendant had received Rs.1,85,000 as consideration amount and the plaintiffs are ready to pay the balance consideration amount. The consideration amount was fixed at Rs.5,20,000. Therefore, according to the plaintiff, the balance consideration amount was Rs.3,35,000 only. The learned Court below after considering the oral as well as documentary evidences, came to the conclusion that the claim of the plaintiffs regarding payment of Rs.1,85,000 is false and in fact, the learned Court below found that the plaintiffs have paid only Rs.1,60,000. In spite of said finding of the learned Court below, the plaintiffs suit has been decreed. The learned counsel further submitted that the plaintiffs approached the Court with unclean hand and made false allegation with regard to payment of Rs.25,000 on 8.10.1997 and in support of the same, Exhibit 3 was filed but the learned Court below disbelieved the said claim of the plaintiffs. In such circumstances, the grant of specific performance of contract being the equitable relief should not have been granted in favour of the plaintiffs who approached the Court with unclean hand.