1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. ::: JUDGMENT Godawari. vs. Kishna Ram. S.B.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.240/2006 UNDER SECTION 100 CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 3.3.2006 PASSED BY SHRI VIDHYA SAGAR TAK, DISTRICT JUDGE, MERTA IN CIVIL APPEAL DECREE NO.8/2002. DATE OF JUDGMENT ::: 13.2.2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.Ranjeet Joshi, for the appellant. - - - - - BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant/defendant is aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 3.3.2006 by which the first appellate court reversed the dismissal of the suit of 2 the plaintiff/respondent and granted decree of specific performance of contract. Brief facts of the case are that according to the plaintiff, an agreement to sale was executed by three co-sharers on 24.6.1986. By this agreement, three co- sharers agreed to sell 1/3rd share each to the plaintiff. Out of 3, 2 co-sharers sold their share to the plaintiff within two days on 26.6.1986 by registered sale deed. The defendant did not honour the agreement, therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of contract on 16.8.1986 i.e. within a period of two months from signing of agreement to sale by the defendant. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the agreement in question is absolutely false document which is proved from the fact that according to plaintiff himself, the entire land was sold for consideration of Rs.16,000/- whereas for 1/3rd share, he paid Rs.16,000/- to other person who was party in the disputed agreement for sale. Therefore, it is clear that the plaintiff's entire case that he purchased the entire land for consideration of Rs.16,000/- is false. It is also submitted that there is no explanation as to how a person who purchased share in the land for a consideration of Rs.5,333.33p. can purchase the same 3 land within two days from the same vendor for a consideration of Rs.16,000/-. Learned counsel for the appellant in this regard relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Lourdu Mari David & Ors. vs. Louis Chinnaya Arogiaswamy & Ors. reported in 1996 DNJ (SC) 348 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the parties seeking relief must come with clean hands and the plaintiff came with incorrect and false facts and hence, the courts below rightly refused to exercise discretion on legal principles and rightly denied the decree for specific performance of contract to the plaintiff therein. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the plaintiff was never ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, therefore, the trial court was right in dismissing the suit. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the reasons given by the two courts below. The facts clearly reveal that the agreement which was found proved by the two courts below concurrently was executed on 24.6.1986. This finding of fact cannot be assailed in second appeal and otherwise also, there is no reason to interfere in this finding of fact. The agreement was executed on 24.6.1986 and the suit for 4 specific performance of contract was filed on 16.8.1986 is itself a sufficient ground for holding that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract, particularly in view of the fact that not only, he filed the suit within two months period but he acted on the agreement and got the share of two vendors in his favour by making payment. So far as more payment made to co-sharers and co-promisees in the agreement dated 24.6.1986, that is not very much material and cannot affect the agreement dated 24.6.1986. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant delivered in the case of Lourdu Mari David (supra) has no application to the facts of the case. In that case, the respondent no.3 was found having no knowledge of the plaintiff's earlier agreement and he was found to be bonafide purchaser of value without notice of the earlier agreement. That was one of the reason for refusal of the relief of specific performance of contract and the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the parties seeking relief must come with clear hands. In the instant case, the appellant failed to demonstrate how the plaintiff has not come with clean hands when he has proved the execution of the agreement dated 24.6.1986 and has filed the suit within a period of two months of executing the agreement and after 5 getting the sale deed in his favour of the remaining share of the property. Learned counsel for the appellant also tried to submit that the vendor was misled and the document was got executed by the plaintiff. That plea is liable to be rejected summarily because of the reason that two courts below rejected the said plea concurrently. In view of the above discussion, I do not find that any substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. Consequently, this appeal having no merit, is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya