JUDGMENT N.K. Mody, J. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 24-2-2004, passed by XVIth Additional District Judge, Indore, in Civil Suit No. 12-A/2002, whereby the suit filed by the respondent for specific performance was decreed and the respondent was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 71,450/- to the appellant and the appellant was directed to execute the sale deed in favour of respondent, the present appeal has been filed. Short facts of the case are that the respondent, who is wife of Basant Kumar Neema, filed a suit for specific performance on 8-3-1989, alleging that the appellant is the owner of a flat bearing house No. 1166, situated at Khatiwala Tank, Indore, (which shall be referred hereinafter as suit property). In the suit it was alleged that appellant entered into an agreement to sale the suit property on 12-3-1986 and accepted a sum of Rs. 15,000/-, as earnest money. It was alleged that the respondent was in occupation of the suit property prior to the execution of the agreement. It was further alleged that apart from a sum of Rs. 15,000/-, which was paid as an earnest money respondent also paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, as an advance and another Rs. 5,000/- as the appellant was in need. It was alleged that thus the total sum which was paid by respondent to the appellant was Rs. 25,000/- and the balance amount, which was payable was Rs. 43,000/-. Further case of respondent was that respondent was ready and willing to perform her part of agreement, but the appellant failed to execute the sale deed in favour of respondent after accepting the balance amount. It was alleged that out of the balance amount appellant was asking to pay part of the sale price un-officially for which the respondent was not prepared. It was further alleged in the suit that appellant filed a suit for eviction against Basant Kumar Neema, the husband of respondent in the Court of Civil Judge Class-I, Indore, which is pending. It was alleged that the appellant be directed to execute the sale deed in favour of respondent. It was further alleged in the suit that appellant filed a suit for eviction against Basant Kumar Neema, the husband of respondent in the Court of Civil Judge Class-I, Indore, which is pending. It was alleged that the appellant be directed to execute the sale deed in favour of respondent. During pendency of the suit the pleadings were amended by the respondent and it was alleged that the suit property belonged to M.P. Housing Board which was purchased by the appellant under Hire Purchase Agreement and after making payment of instalments Housing Board has executed the documents in favour of appellant. Hence, the appellant is eligible to execute the sale deed of the suit property in favour of respondent. Suit was further amended by the respondent and it was alleged that in an execution of a decree passed by VIIth Civil Judge Class-I, Indore, the appellant has taken possession of the suit property from the husband of respondent, hence decree of possession be also passed in favour of respondent. In the suit it was also prayed that in alternative appellant be directed to pay the interest @ 18% p.a. on the sum of Rs. 68,000/-, which was the agreed amount of sale of suit property w.e.f. 12-3-1986, i.e. the date of agreement. The written statement was filed by the appellant, wherein the allegations made in the plaint were denied, it was alleged that Basant Kumar Neema, husband of respondent was tenant in the suit accommodation w.e.f. 1-1-1982 @ Rs. 450/- per month for which rent note was executed in favour of appellant. It was alleged that since the rent was not paid by the husband of respondent, regularly and the appellant was in need of suit accommodation, therefore, after issuance of notice for eviction dated 15-7-1986, a suit for eviction was filed by the appellant. It was alleged that before filing suit for specific performance a notice was given by the respondent, wherein it was alleged that agreement to sale of the suit property was executed by the appellant in favour of respondent, hence the appellant should execute the sale deed in favour of respondent. It was alleged that after receipt of the notice appellant asked the respondent to get the original agreement inspected to the appellant, but in spite of that respondent did not bother to get the agreement inspected to the appellant. It was alleged that after receipt of the notice appellant asked the respondent to get the original agreement inspected to the appellant, but in spite of that respondent did not bother to get the agreement inspected to the appellant. It was alleged that the suit property was purchased by the appellant from M.P. Housing Board under the Hire Purchase Scheme according to which the appellant was required to pay the instalments to the Housing Board for a period of 15 years. It was also submitted that as per the clause of agreement of Hire Purchase Agreement, appellant was restrained to transfer the suit property. It was alleged that as per the agreement instalments were require to be paid by respondent to the Housing Board but respondent failed in payment of instalments. It was also denied that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was paid to appellant in two instalments of Rs. 5,000/- each. It was prayed in the written statement that the suit be dismissed. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the issues, recorded the evidence and decreed the suit, against which the present appeal has been filed. Mr. B.I. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Court below committed error in decreeing the suit filed by respondent. It is submitted that since the suit property was transferred by the appellant vide registered sale deed dated 12-10-2004, therefore, an application was filed by the purchaser to implead him as party, but the same was opposed by the respondent. It was alleged that since the appellant was having no right, title or interest in the suit property, therefore the application to implead the purchaser as party deserves to be allowed. For this contention reliance was placed on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Amit Kumar Shaw and Another Vs. Farida Khatoon and Another, , wherein a question of joinder of transferee pendente lite in title suit was taken into consideration by the Hon'ble Court and it was held that the transferee can be joined both under Order XXII Rule 10 or under Order 1, Rule 10, and the transferee is bound by the final decree u/s 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial Court committed error in decreeing the suit. Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial Court committed error in decreeing the suit. It is submitted that the respondent alleged in the plaint that respondent paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in two instalments to the appellant in addition to the earnest money of Rs. 15,000/-, but failed to prove the same. It is submitted that since the appellant did not come with clean hands, therefore, only on this ground suit deserves to be dismissed. It was further submitted that the agreement to sale the suit property was dated 12-3-1986. The notice to execute the sale deed was issued by respondent on 8-4-1986, which was not complied by the appellant and on the contrary a suit was filed by the appellant against the husband of respondent for eviction and the possession was also taken. In the circumstances there was no justification on the part of respondent in sitting idle and not filing the suit till 10-3-1989. It is submitted that no doubt the suit is within three years from the date of agreement, but in the facts and circumstances of the case there was no justification on the part of respondent in not filing the suit for a period of three long years. Learned counsel further submits that respondent was not ready and willing at any point of time to get the sale deed executed. It is submitted that respondent failed to demonstrate that the respondent was possessing the requisite amount at all the relevant time to get the sale deed executed. It is submitted that respondent was further required to prove that respondent No. 1 was having funds for stamp duty and registration fee, but respondent failed to prove the same. It is further submitted that the suit also deserves to be dismissed on the ground that respondent failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement. It is submitted that one of the condition of the agreement was that the respondent shall pay the instalments, which were being payable by the appellant the M.P. Housing Board, as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. It is submitted that before filing of the suit i.e. during the period of three years from the date of agreement the respondent did not deposit a single instalment under the Hire Purchase Agreement, which was payable by the appellant. Mr. It is submitted that before filing of the suit i.e. during the period of three years from the date of agreement the respondent did not deposit a single instalment under the Hire Purchase Agreement, which was payable by the appellant. Mr. Saxena, learned counsel for respondent submits that the suit has rightly been decreed by the respondent. It was also submitted that the relief of specific performance is a discretionary relief and discretion was exercised in favour of respondent, which cannot be set aside in appeal. Mr. Saxena further submits that so far as the alleged delay is concerned upto the period of limitation does not disentitle the respondent to get the decree of specific performance. For this contention reliance was placed on a decision of Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Mahesh Chandra Gupta and Another Vs. A.K. Mishra, , wherein a Division Bench of this Court held that delay upto the period of limitation does not disentitle plaintiff to get decree. Learned counsel further submits that since the suit property was sold by the appellant during the pendency of the suit, therefore, there was no necessity to implead the purchaser as party, as section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, takes care of the situation. After hearing of the parties, this Court is of the view that the learned Court below committed error in decreeing the suit for the following reasons : Firstly, the alleged agreement was dated 12-3-1986 and the show cause notice was issued by the respondent No. 1 on 8-4-1986. Since no sale deed was executed by the appellant in compliance of the notice and on the contrary the suit was filed for eviction against the husband of respondent and in the said suit the decree of eviction was obtained and ultimately possession was also obtained, therefore, there was no justification on the part of respondent to wait upto the period of expiry of limitation. Undoubtedly, the suit was within time, as it was within limitation prescribed under Limitation Act, but filing of the suit after a considerable period demonstrate that respondent was not ready and willing to get the sale deed executed. Reliance is placed on a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of K.S. Vidyanadam and Others Vs. Undoubtedly, the suit was within time, as it was within limitation prescribed under Limitation Act, but filing of the suit after a considerable period demonstrate that respondent was not ready and willing to get the sale deed executed. Reliance is placed on a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of K.S. Vidyanadam and Others Vs. Vairavan, wherein in a suit filed within limitation prescribed by the law Hon'ble Apex Court held that inaction on part of 2? years in violation of terms of agreement cannot be ignored. It was further held by the Apex Court that the delay coupled with substantial rise in prices of properties, it will be inequitable to give relief of specific performance. Secondly, since the respondent alleged in the plaint that respondent has paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the appellant in two instalments in addition to the earnest money of Rs. 15,000/- and failed to prove the same, therefore, it can be said that respondent did not come with clean hands. Reliance is placed on a decision of Apex Court in the matter of Ram Kumar Agrawal and Another Vs. Thawar Das (Dead) Through Lrs., , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court in a suit for specific performance a plea was taken by the plaintiff that a sum of Rs. 2,000/- was paid and the findings arrived that no amount was paid, held that person who falsely claims to have paid a sum of money and attempts to prove the plea at trial stage cannot be said to have been ever ready and willing to pay the sum due under the contract in question, in the present case the agreement exhibit P-1, is a handwritten document on plane paper. At the initial stage when the notice for specific performance was issued by the respondent on 8-4-1986, which is exhibit P-2 and in reply to which vide exhibit D-1, the appellant asked to supply the copy of alleged agreement. Appellant preferred not to supply the copy of the agreement and waited for three long years from 8-4-1986 to 8-3-1989, for filing the suit for specific performance. Appellant preferred not to supply the copy of the agreement and waited for three long years from 8-4-1986 to 8-3-1989, for filing the suit for specific performance. A prudent person who has genuinely entered into an agreement and is in possession of the suit property through her husband as tenant and is ready and willing to pay the balance amount will not take risk of non-supply of the copy of the agreement specially when it is handwritten and wait for filing the suit till last day of limitation at the cost of loosing the possession in a hope of a decree from the Court for possession. Thirdly, as per the agreement Exhibit P-1, the respondent was required to pay the instalments which was payable to housing board. There is no averment in the plaint that the respondent paid the instalments to the housing board or why the balance instalments were not paid by the respondent. Fourthly, in the agreement itself there was a condition that the respondent shall pay the balance amount which was payable to the appellant on or before 12-4-1986, i.e. within a period of 1 month, but there is nothing on record to show that respondent ever offered the balance amount to the appellant before the date specified in the agreement. Fifthly, in the facts and circumstances of the case learned Court below committed error in decreeing the suit whereby the appellant was directed to execute the sale deed in favour of respondent upon receipt of Rs. 71,450/-. This Court is having no hesitation to hold that the respondent was neither ready nor willing to perform her part of agreement as per the agreement nor came with clean hands, as the factum of payment of Rs. 10,000/- to the appellant after the agreement was not found proved. Sixthly, the opposition of the respondent of the application filed by the subsequent purchaser to implead him party to the litigation, though section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act protects the interest of the litigant but a prudent plaintiff will never oppose the implementation of subsequent transferee as party to the litigation when he himself is offering to be implied, to avoid the unwanted objections in the execution of a decree. Seventhly, in the suit itself the alternative prayer of the respondent is for the return of amount of Rs. 15,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. on Rs. Seventhly, in the suit itself the alternative prayer of the respondent is for the return of amount of Rs. 15,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. on Rs. 68,000/- which is the sale amount. The prayer of the respondent is having no justification because the respondent has paid only a sum of Rs. 15,000/-, as earnest money, therefore, there was no justification for asking interest on Rs. 68,000/- However, it cannot be denied that the respondent has paid a sum of Rs. 15,000/- in the year 1986 and a period of 21 years has lapsed thereafter if the value of the property is increased then the amount of earnest money has also been devalued, therefore, respondent is entitled for the refund of the amount along with compensatory interest. At this stage Shri B.I. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant offers to return the money with interest @ 24% p.a. In view of this the appeal is allowed. Judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dated 24-2-2004 is modified to the extent that the appellant shall pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in lumpsum within a period of one month by tendering the amount to the respondents by demand draft or by depositing the same with the learned Court under intimation to the respondent failing which appellant shall be further liable for payment of interest on the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- @ 15% p.a. With the aforesaid modification the appeal stands disposed of. Parties shall bear their own costs.