Clean hands and full disclosure govern specific performance; post-decree interest on damages was added at 6% per annum.

Specific performance was refused because the plaintiffs suppressed material facts, including the HUF character of the property, and their pleadings and evidence were inconsistent on consideration and possession; as equitable relief under the Specific Relief Act, it was unavailable to parties who did not approach the court with clean hands, especially where co-sharers were not before the court and no relief was abandoned against them. The damages decree was, however, modified to include post-decree interest at 6% per annum from the date of the trial court decree until payment or realisation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree for specific performance in view of their conduct and the surrounding pleadings and evidence. (ii) Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to interest on the damages awarded by the Trial Court.

Issue (i): Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree for specific performance in view of their conduct and the surrounding pleadings and evidence.

Analysis: Relief of specific performance is discretionary and equitable under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The plaintiffs were found to have suppressed material facts in the plaint, including the character of the property as HUF property, while the draft sale deed relied upon by them itself showed the defendant as Karta of the HUF. The pleadings and evidence were also inconsistent on the alleged reduction of consideration and on delivery of possession. In these circumstances, the plaintiffs did not approach the Court with clean hands and could not insist on specific performance of the entire property, especially when the co-sharers were not parties and no relief was given up against them.

Conclusion: The refusal of specific performance was upheld and the plaintiffs were held disentitled to that relief.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to interest on the damages awarded by the Trial Court.

Analysis: The Trial Court had awarded damages of Rs. 40,000/- but had not granted post-decree interest. The appellate Court modified the decree to add interest at 6% per annum from the date of the Trial Court decree until payment or realisation.

Conclusion: Interest on the damages was allowed at 6% per annum from the date of the Trial Court decree till payment or realisation.

Final Conclusion: The denial of specific performance was maintained, but the damages decree was modified by adding post-decree interest, so the appeal succeeded only to a limited extent.

Ratio Decidendi: A party seeking specific performance of an equitable contract must disclose all material facts and come with clean hands; suppression, inconsistency in pleadings and evidence, and pursuit of relief beyond what can fairly be granted justify refusal of discretionary relief.

---