In Brief
A man sued for specific performance to compel a property sale agreed on June 4, 2002, for ₹13 lakhs. The trial court decreed the suit, finding him financially capable and ready to pay. The High Court reversed this, finding the agreement was "sham"—actually a loan security arrangement, evidenced by a simultaneous Memorandum of Understanding. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's dismissal, holding that the plaintiff's failure to disclose the MoU in his case amounted to "unclean hands," justifying denial of the equitable remedy of specific performance. The Court noted the MoU's credibility through consecutive stamp papers and identical witnesses, establishing it was part of a single loan-security package created the same day as the sale agreement.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.