Specific performance denied for false pleas and a bona fide purchaser without notice under equitable principles.

Specific performance under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is an equitable and discretionary remedy, and a claimant must approach the court with clean hands. The plaintiff's false and discrepant pleas regarding possession, disclosure of the agreement, and alleged additional payment undermined entitlement to relief. Concurrent findings also established that the third respondent was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the prior agreement. On those factual findings, refusal of specific performance was justified and no interference was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether specific performance of the agreement of sale should be granted when the plaintiff was found to have made false pleas and when the third respondent was held to be a bona fide purchaser without notice.

Analysis: Under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, specific performance is an equitable and discretionary relief, to be exercised on sound legal principles. A party seeking such relief must approach the court with clean hands. On the evidence, the plaintiff was found to have advanced false and discrepant pleas regarding possession, alleged disclosure of the agreement to the third respondent, and payment of additional for vacating the premises. The courts below also concurrently found, on appreciation of evidence, that the third respondent had no notice of the prior agreement and had purchased for value in good faith. These findings justified refusal of the equitable relief.

Conclusion: Specific performance was rightly refused, and no ground for interference was made out.

---