JUDGMENT : Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6th December 2013 passed by learned Third Additional Judge of the Court of First Additional District Judge, Bilaspur (CG) in Civil Suit No.1-A/2012 by which the appellant's/plaintiff's suit has been dismissed. 2. The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit against defendant/respondent seeking a decree of specific performance on the pleadings, inter alia, that the defendant/respondent entered into an agreement to sell the property in dispute on 28.7.2009 and executed an agreement on that day agreeing to sell the property in dispute for a consideration of Rs.31,25,000/-. It was further pleaded that initially, at the time of execution of agreement, the plaintiff paid and defendant received cash of Rs.15 lakhs in the presence of witnesses. Further pleadings of the plaintiff was that later on, defendant from time to time, received amount towards the sale consideration and in this manner, a further amount of Rs.7 lakhs was also paid by the plaintiff to the defendant and another agreement was also executed on 20.1.2011 containing recital that defendant had received a total amount of Rs.22 lakhs from the plaintiff towards execution of sale deed in favour of plaintiff. However, when upon demand of the plaintiff, the defendant did not execute the sale deed even though, the plaintiff had collected all necessary revenue documents, a registered notice was given to the defendant, followed by a paper publication and finally, the suit was filed seeking decree of specific performance. 3. The defence of defendant No.1 was that he did not enter into any agreement to sell his property to the plaintiff nor any agreement was executed by him. He did not receive any amount from the plaintiff towards part payment of sale consideration. It was the case of the defendant that the plaintiff is a money lender who has obtained the signature of the defendant as the defendant had obtained certain loan. According to defendant, it was merely a loan transaction and the defendant has already paid the entire amount of loan borrowed by him from the plaintiff but the plaintiff is not issuing receipts and now an attempt has been made by the plaintiff to grab the property of the defendant on certain forged and fabricated documents. 4. According to defendant, it was merely a loan transaction and the defendant has already paid the entire amount of loan borrowed by him from the plaintiff but the plaintiff is not issuing receipts and now an attempt has been made by the plaintiff to grab the property of the defendant on certain forged and fabricated documents. 4. On the bass of the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed as many as five issues which are as under:- ^^1- D;k Áfroknh ØŒ 1 ds }kjk oknh ds i{k esa fnukad 28-7-2009 dks ekStk dksuh IkŒgŒuaŒ 17] jkŒfuŒeaŒ fcykliqj fLFkr oknHkwfe [kljk uacj 223@3 ,oa 225@1] jdck Øe'k 0-07 ,oa 0-18 ,dM+ dqy 0-25 ,dM+ Hkwfe dks 1]25]000@& :i;s Áfr fMlfey ds Hkko ls dqy 31]25]000@& ¼:i;s bDrhl yk[k iPphl gtkj :i;s½ esa foØ; djus dk djkj dj bdjkjukek fu"ikfnr fd;k x;k gSA 2- D;k oknh us Áfroknh ØŒ 1 dks fofHkUu frfFk;ksa ij djkj fnukad 28-7-2009 dh 'krksZ ds ifjikyu esa dqy 31]25]000@& :i;s esa ls :i;s 22]00]000@& ¼ckbZl yk[k :i;s½ dks Hkqxrku dj fn;k gSA 3- D;k oknh] Áfroknh ØŒ 1 dks lafonk dh 'krksZ ds vuqlkj 'ks"k jkf'k dk lank; dj iathd`r foØ; i= fu"iknu djokus ds fy;s lnSo gh rS;kj ,oa rRij jgk gSA 4- D;k oknh] Áfroknh ØŒ 1 ds }kjk okn Hkwfe dk iathd`r foØ; i= lafonk ds fofufnZ"V ikyu esa] oknh ds i{k esa fu"ikfnr fd;s tkus dh vkKfIr ÁkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA 5- lgk;rk ,oa O;;A** Before the trial Court, the plaintiff examined himself and two other witnesses to prove the agreement executed on two occasions i.e. 28-7-2009 and 20.1.2011 as Ex.P-3 & P-4 respectively. In denial of the plaintiff's case, the defendant examined himself and three other witnesses. Defendant came out with the document prepared by himself containing noting of repayment made to the plaintiff. 5. Learned trial Court, however, recorded a finding that the so called transaction was suspicious and it was not proved by reliable evidence that there was an agreement to sell the property. Defendant came out with the document prepared by himself containing noting of repayment made to the plaintiff. 5. Learned trial Court, however, recorded a finding that the so called transaction was suspicious and it was not proved by reliable evidence that there was an agreement to sell the property. The learned trial Court in order to reach to the said conclusion took into consideration that the plaintiff had not disclosed the source of fund from which he had made payment of Rs.22 lakhs to the defendant; that the witnesses to the agreement do not show that they themselves had counted money; that there is some discrepancy and overwriting in second agreement dated 20.1.2011; that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract and that defendant version that it was a loan transaction appears to be more probable. 6. Assailing correctness and validity of the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the appellant would argue that even though the plaintiff had succeeded in proving due execution of the agreements dated 28.7.2009 and 20.1.2011 (Ex.P-3 & Ex.P-4) respectively and defendant having admitted that he had received various amount, the Court below committed error in law and on facts both in holding that the plaintiff failed to prove that such an amount was paid. He would submit that the defendant in his written statement did not deny receipt of amount but made evasive pleading of he having returned the so called loan taken by him of which no details have been given in the written statement nor any receipt has been filed to show that he repaid the loan, which according to him was taken from the plaintiff as loan. Therefore, this conduct of the defendant and that he failed to discharge his burden that the transaction was not towards sale but only a loan transaction, learned trial Court ought to have held that the conduct of the defendant proves receipt of money in sale transaction. He further submits that the plaintiff having paid a substantial amount which is ¾th of the total sale consideration, by itself, is sufficient to prove readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform his part of contract. He further submits that the plaintiff having paid a substantial amount which is ¾th of the total sale consideration, by itself, is sufficient to prove readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform his part of contract. As far as collection of revenue documents are concerned, it is submitted that the plaintiff filed two important revenue documents necessary for execution of sale deed, namely, revenue entries of P-II- khasra and B-I-kistbandi khatauni as Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-2. Learned trial Court has doubted the genuineness of the transaction on trivial aspect which could not form material basis to cast shadow on the genuineness of the transaction. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgments in the cases of Zarina Siddiqui Vs. A. Ramalingam alias R. Amarnathan ( AIR 2015 SC 580 ), A. Kanthamani Vs. Nasreen Ahmed (2017) 4 SCC 654 and Gian Chand and Brothers & Ors. Vs. Rattan Lal 2013 (1) CGBCLJ 223. 7. Despite repeated calls and the hearing of the case continuing for two days, there is no representation made on behalf of the respondent. 8. We have perused the records of the case and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. 9. Pleadings as contained in the plaint are that the defendant executed an agreement in favour of the plaintiff on 28.7.2009 for sale of the lands in dispute for a consideration of Rs.31,25,000/-, upon receiving advance of Rs.15 lakhs in the presence of witnesses. The emphatic pleading made by the plaintiff is that after execution of the first agreement, the plaintiff paid further amount of installment on different dates and in four installments, a further amount of Rs.7 lakhs was also paid which was also duly acknowledged by the defendant in the agreement dated 20.1.2011, in which, defendant admitted having received further amount of Rs.7 lakhs and a total of Rs.22 lakhs. Fuhrer pleading of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff having arranged necessary revenue records, requested the defendant to execute the sale deed but the defendant kept on avoiding the execution of sale deed. A specific pleading was made by the plaintiff that he was and is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract and get the sale deed executed. A specific pleading was made by the plaintiff that he was and is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract and get the sale deed executed. Finally, when the defendant did not execute dale deed, a registered legal notice dated 6.7.2011 was sent to defendant which was not replied. The plaintiff further pleaded that the defendant may receive balance of Rs.9, 25,000/- and execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff as per the agreement. When plaintiff came to know that, later on, the defendant is intending to sell the property in dispute to third party for a higher consideration, notice was also published in newspaper dated 23.8.2011. On these pleadings, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking decree of specific performance of contract. 10. The plaintiff, who examined himself as PW1 and his two witnesses, stated in his affidavit regarding execution of two agreements in the presence of witnesses, as stated by him in the plaint. In para-4 of his affidavit, he has stated that within 3 months of the agreement, he approached the defendant number of times to seek execution of sale deed by receiving balance amount but the defendant kept on avoiding and finally a notice was also given to him. He stated that he has already paid huge amount and he is an income tax payee. He is prepared and willing to pay balance amount and purchase the property from the defendant. He further stated that he is not engaged in money lending business and not a money lender. The plaintiff was subjected to detailed cross examination. So far as the two agreements are concerned, with regard to agreement dated 28.7.2009 (Ex.P-3), this witness deposed that in his presence, defendant Akhilesh Tiwari signed and he also signed the agreement and he has proved his signature in the said agreement. Plaintiff witness No.2 Ichwakudutt Tiwari, who is one of the witnesses to execution of the agreement (Ex.P-3) deposed in his evidence that Akhilesh informed him that he is willing to sell his property where-after, he contacted appellant Ashok Sharma who expressed his willingness to purchase the property. Thereafter, Akhilesh and Ashok and this witness came to Koni to locate the property. Thereafter, Akhilesh and Ashok and this witness came to Koni to locate the property. Ashok Sharma expressed his willingness to purchase the property and in his presence, Rs.15 lakhs in cash were paid by Ashok to Akhilesh and in his presence, agreement was executed which was duly notarized by the Notary Mr. Dubey and in the said agreement, Akhilesh and Ashok signed as vendor and purchaser respectively. He also stated that in his presence, another witness Pankaj Singh Thakur also singed the agreement. This witness has been subjected to detailed cross-examination. Though he states that he does not know who has typewritten the agreement (Ex.P-3), he denies suggestion that no transaction took place in his presence. He explains by stating that before 28.7.2009, Rs.15 lakh was paid and this amount was paid outside the Tahsil office at the place where Notary sits. He further states that even before execution of the agreement, the deal was settled between the parties two days before and the stamp papers were purchased by Akhilesh. The suggestion that agreement (Ex.P-3) is fabricated has been emphatically denied. From the aforesaid evidence of Ashok Sharma (PW1), and attesting witness Ichwakudutt Tiwari (PW2), execution of agreement in ExP-3 is proved. As the evidence of two witness are reliable, even if the second witness to the document Pankaj has not been examined, no doubt can be raised and we are inclined to hold that the plaintiff proved, by satisfactory evidence, that there was an agreement for sale of the property in dispute, entered into between plaintiff Ashok Sharma and defendant Akhilesh which deal was struck in the presence of witness Ichwakudutt Tiwari (PW2). The plaintiff paid and defendant received Rs.15 lakhs in cash and then executed the agreement. 11. In so far as the other agreement dated 20.1.2011 is concerned, the plaintiff has stated in his affidavit regarding execution of the same by stating that after execution of the first agreement dated 20.8.2009, the plaintiff paid in four installments a total of Rs.7 lakhs to the defendant and thereafter, the defendant again executed agreement in respect of the same property acknowledging receipt of Rs.22 lakhs from time to time in the presence of witnesses. The plaintiff Ashok Sharma (PW1) has proved his signature on the said document. The plaintiff Ashok Sharma (PW1) has proved his signature on the said document. In order to prove this transaction, the plaintiff has also examined one of the attesting witness of this document, namely, Ravi Shrivas (PW3) who has stated in his evidence that in January 2011, Akhilesh executed an agreement by taking Rs.3 lakhs from Ashok Sharma and he along with Ichwakudutt Tiwari appeared as witnesses and signed the document. He further states that Akhilesh and Ashok also singed the agreement and he was told by Akhilesh that he had sold his property to Ashok and till now, he has received Rs.22 lakh and remaining amount he would receive and execute sale deed within three months. In his cross-examination, he was given suggestion and which is admitted that he was made a witness and asked to sign document, therefore he signed it. Though this witness states that agreement dated 20.1.2011 (Ex.P-4) was not typewritten in his presence, he has denied that he signs only those documents which Ashok requires him to sign. He has emphatically stated that he had signed document on the date when transaction had taken place. He further deposes in his cross-examination that Akhilesh had called him from his shop and stated that “I am taking Rs.3 lakhs in respect of my property and this witness has to sign the document of transaction” and it was only on his request that this witness signed the document. He also says that in his presence, Ichwakudutt Tiwari had also signed. From the emphatic evidence of the plaintiff Ashok Sharma (PW1) and plaintiff witness Ravi Shrivas (PW3), the execution of second agreement (Ex.P-4) dated 20.1.2011 is fully proved. 12. In the first agreement dated 28.7.2009 (Ex. P-3), it has been recorded that the defendant agreed to sell his property at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per decimal and has received an advance of Rs.15 lakh in the presence of witnesses. The agreement also discloses his source of title that he had purchased this property from one Nandkishore on 9.10.1997 and duly mutated in his name on 10.12.1998 and issued a rin-pustika No.1581854 by the Revenue Department. Agreement further recorded that all revenue documents necessary for registration will have to be arranged by the seller and the sale deed would be executed within two years. 13. Agreement further recorded that all revenue documents necessary for registration will have to be arranged by the seller and the sale deed would be executed within two years. 13. The second agreement date 20.1.2011 (Ex.P-4) contains recital of the same property which was subject matter of earlier agreement (Ex.P-3) and it further records that earlier on 28.7.2009, Rs.15 lakhs was paid and from time to time, part payment in installments have been made and a total of Rs.7 lakhs have been paid in installment and thus, a total of Rs.22 lakhs has been received by the defendant. It further contained recital that defendant would execute sale deed within three months. 14. The defence as pleaded by the defendant is that he never executed any agreement to sell his property and there was no such transaction nor he received any money towards sale consideration. His case is that the plaintiff is a money lender and while advancing loan, he obtained signatures and in this act of plaintiff, his associates Ichwakudutt Tiwari and Ram Manohar Dubey helped him. He further admits that his signatures were obtained on various papers though according to him, such signatures were obtained under duress. He then states that entire amount has been repaid by him to the plaintiff and no amount is further payable by him to the plaintiff. The relevant pleadings as contained in para-9 of the written statement are reproduced as below: ^^9- ;FkkFkZ ;g gS fd oknh lkgwdkj gS og yksxksa dks lkgwdkjh esa vf/kd jkf'k C;kt yxkdj ds :i;s m/kkj nsrk gS vkSj cyiwoZd muls olwyh djk;k djrk gS ,oa mlds ,ot esa _f.k;ksa ls iwjs dkxtks esa nLr[kr djkdj j[krk gSA ftlesa fd mldh lgk;rk ds crkSj mlds fe= Jh bPNkdwnRr frokjh ,oa jkeeuksgj nqcs lg;ksx fd;k djrs gSA bu O;fDr;ksa ds lkFk feydj ds oknh us vius bl vkrad dk tks nq"ÁHkko fØ;kfUor fd;k vkSj bu yksx ds lg;ksx ls dbZ dkxtkrksa esa nLr[kr fy;kA tcfd laiw.kZ jkf'k bl Áfroknh ds }kjk oknh dks iVk fn;k x;k gS dksbZ jkf'k 'ks"k ugha gS mlds cnys esa oknh us jkf'k ÁkIr djus dk jlhn ugha fn;k gSA** 15. The pleading referred to above, if construed rationally, would show that the defendant having pleaded that he has returned the amount to the plaintiff, is an admission of having received money from the plaintiff. The pleading referred to above, if construed rationally, would show that the defendant having pleaded that he has returned the amount to the plaintiff, is an admission of having received money from the plaintiff. But then, defendant has made a very evasive pleading with regard to transaction in which such amount was allegedly repaid by him to the plaintiff. If the pleadings are taken as a whole, the defendant seeks to set up a plea in the defence that the transaction was that of loan and not of sale of the property. In the written statement, while the defendant initially denies having received any amount from the plaintiff, this pleading is inherently contradictory to what he has stated in para-9 of his written statement wherein he avers that whatever amount he has received, was repaid by him to the plaintiff. When that amount was paid and in how many installments that amount was paid and what was the amount paid in installments has not been pleaded by the defendant. In this regard, what has been stated by the defendant himself in his evidence and cross-examination is quite relevant. In his affidavit, the defendant Akhilesh Tiwari states that the plaintiff is a money lender and he had taken loan from plaintiff Ashok for his agricultural work which amount he has repaid along with interest and no amount remains outstanding. However, no details have been given in the affidavit regarding re-payment much less any receipt filed. A selfserving document in the form of noting of various amounts with a total of Rs.8,30,000/- has been filed by the defendant as Ex.D-1 in support of his defence that he has repaid the loan amount. This does not help the defendant but only establishes his conduct that having come out with the plea that he had taken loan from the plaintiff, he fails to give specific details regarding repayment of any loan by him to the plaintiff. The submission that the plaintiff never used to issue any receipt is highly improbable as the amount involved was quite a huge one and it is improbable that a person, while repaying the amount, would not insist on issuance of acknowledgement of receipt. The submission that the plaintiff never used to issue any receipt is highly improbable as the amount involved was quite a huge one and it is improbable that a person, while repaying the amount, would not insist on issuance of acknowledgement of receipt. Moreover, in his cross-examination, defendant admits that he is known to the plaintiff since 2005-06 and also admits having taken the loan in the presence of Ichwakudutt Tiwari though according to him, it was a loan. He then states that he cannot remember as to how many times he had taken loan but according to him he had taken Rs.8,30,000/-. He admits that he has not submitted any documentary evidence of re-payment of money which according to him was taken as loan. In para-15, he states that the plaintiff had obtained the signature on blank papers but he did not sign stamp document. He admits that as and when he used to take the amount, his signature were obtained by the plaintiff. He also admits that when he signed the document, Akhilesh Ichwakudutt Tiwari and other persons were present. 16. The defendant having come out with the defence that he had taken loan and that he had repaid the loan was required to be establish by leading cogent and clinching evidence in that regard, which he has miserably failed to do. The defendant admits that he had signed various documents but then come out with the defence that those documents were blank. The defendant is not a rustic villager nor it has been proved from the records that the plaintiff was a money lender or that the signatures of the defendant were obtained by exercising any duress. The evidence of independent witness to the execution of document having been found to be reliable and defendant having not disputed receipt of various amount but only disputing the nature of transaction, we are inclined to hold that there was an agreement executed between the parties for sale of the property in dispute for total consideration of Rs.31,25,000/- and the plaintiff had paid a total amount of Rs.22 lakh to the defendant and the defendant has failed to discharge his burden that the transaction was that of a loan. 17. 17. The falsity of the defendant's case is also proved from the very fact that both in the written statement and in the evidence, he has failed to give specific details of the dates and the amount which was repaid by him which, according to him, was taken only by way of loan and not as part consideration towards sale of the property under the agreement of sale. The defendant has come out with very emphatic plea that the plaintiff had threatened him. There is nothing on record to show that defendant, at any point of time, reported the matter to the police or to any other authority that his signatures have been obtained by threat or coercion or that the plaintiff or other persons used criminal force. Both the parties are resident of the same city. They are well educated and it cannot be said, from the material on record, that the plaintiff was in a position to coerce the defendant. The defendant has put his signature in English. In his evidence, defendant Akhilesh states that he has not signed the documents (Ex.P-3 & Ex.P-4) but then witnesses have clearly stated that he had signed the documents. As the plaintiff and witnesses have proved their signatures in the documents, if at all the defendant sought to dispute his signature, it was for him to move appropriate application for getting the document sent for examination by the Handwriting Expert. In fact, in his cross examination, as we have referred to above, the case of the defendant is that though he had signed certain documents, his signature were obtained on blank papers. That only demolishes the improbable plea and the defence of the defendant in the present case. 18. In so far as proof of the execution of two agreements (Ex.P-3 & P-4) is concerned, we find that learned trial Court has investigated the whole matter adopting Sherlock Holmes approach doubting on trivial circumstances. One of the reason for disbelieving the plaintiff's case of it being a transaction towards sale of the property is that the plaintiff has failed to disclose the source of fund from which he paid Rs.22 lakhs to the defendant. To our mind, the question which the learned trial Court posed to itself was unwarranted, because it is not a case where the defendant denied having received any amount from the plaintiff. To our mind, the question which the learned trial Court posed to itself was unwarranted, because it is not a case where the defendant denied having received any amount from the plaintiff. As against a specific plea of the plaintiff that the plaintiff paid Rs.22 lakhs to the defendant, mention of which finds specifically in both proved documents (Ex.P-3 & P- 4), the defendant has come out with evasive plea of he having repaid the loan to the plaintiff. In his evidence, he has admitted having received money from the plaintiff. Thus, receipt of the amount having not been disputed, it was wholly unnecessary for the learned trial Court to have doubted the fact that the plaintiff had paid Rs.22 lakhs to the defendant, only on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to produce before the Court the evidence of his source of fund. Likewise, doubt created on the transaction as pleaded by the plaintiff on the ground that one of the witnesses himself did not count the money, to say the least, could not be relied upon as a circumstance to altogether disbelieve the whole transaction when the independent witnesses to the transaction have categorically stated in their evidence, proved their signature and their credibility is unimpeachable throughout their long cross examination. 19. Therefore, we are inclined to reverse the finding of the trial Court on the issue regarding proof of agreement and execution of deed (Ex.P-3 & P-4) and hold that there was an agreement between the parties for sale of the property in dispute, as per the terms of agreement (Ex.P-3) and the plaintiff had paid to the defendant, a total amount of Rs.22 lakhs from time to time as evident from contents of the agreement (Ex.P-4). 20. Learned trial Court has also recorded a finding that the plaintiff is not entitled to decree of specific performance as he has failed to prove that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract. In this regard, we may refer to pleadings of the plaintiff as contained in para-4, 5, 6 & 8 wherein the plaintiff has stated that when defendant did not make available the revenue documents necessary for registration of sale deed, which was required to be performed by the defendant as per agreement (Ex.P-3), the plaintiff arranged all the necessary revenue papers and then again requested the defendant to execute sale deed. The plaintiff has also filed khasra, kistbandi khatauni records of the property in dispute as Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-2 which are certified copies issued by the revenue authorities. Thus, not only clear averment but evidence in this regard has been led by the plaintiff which has remained uncontroverted. It is thus proved that the plaintiff was willing not only to perform his part of contract but was also willing to purchase the property so much so that even though, under the agreement, revenue papers necessary for registration were required to be collected by the defendant, upon his failure to do so, the plaintiff himself arranged those documents. 21. Having held that the plaintiff has proved that he paid Rs.22 lakhs out of Rs.31,25,000/- towards sale consideration which is almost ¾th of the total payable consideration by the plaintiff to the defendant, this by itself is a strong evidence of readiness and willingness on the part of plaintiff to perform his part of contract. In this regard, we consider it apposite to refer to the observations made by their Lordship in the Supreme Court in the case of A. Kanthamani (supra), which is as under:- “32.4. Fourth, the plaintiff had paid more than Rs.2 lakhs to the defendant prior to execution of sale deed in terms of agreement dated 05.03.1989 and was, therefore, required to pay balance sum of Rs.1,47,200/- to the defendant. 32.5. Fifth, on admitted facts, therefore, the plaintiff had paid more than 50% of the sale consideration to the defendant before the due date of execution of sale deed.” 22. The plaintiff has also placed on record his income tax return which shows a sound financial status of the plaintiff. Thus, the fact that the plaintiff had paid huge amount of Rs.22 lakhs and was a person of sound financial capacity, taken together, fulfill the statutory requirement of readiness and willingness to perform part of contract to get a decree of specific performance. 23. Grant of decree of specific relief is an equitable relief and while exercising discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, the conduct of the parties is extremely relevant. 23. Grant of decree of specific relief is an equitable relief and while exercising discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, the conduct of the parties is extremely relevant. Where the Court finds that the defendant has been making false statement or taking contrary stand, the discretion would not be exercised in favour of the defendant but the Court would ordinarily lean to exercise its discretion in favour of the plaintiff to grant him equitable relief. In this regard, the observation made by the Supreme Court in the case of Zarina Siddiqui (supra), are reproduced as under :- “34. The equitable discretion to grant or not to grant a relief for specific performance also depends upon the conduct of the parties. The necessary ingredient has to be proved and established by the plaintiff so that discretion would be exercised judiciously in favour of the plaintiff. At the same time, if the defendant does not come with clean hands and suppresses material facts and evidence and misled the Court then such discretion should not be exercised by refusing to grant specific performance. 35. In the instant case, as noticed above, although defendant no.2 held a registered power of attorney on behalf of defendant no.1 to sell and dispose of the property, but the defendants not only made a false statement on affidavit that the power of attorney had authorized the second defendant only to look after and manage the property but also withheld the said power of attorney from the Court in order to misguide the Court from truth of the facts. Further, by registered agreement the defendants agreed to sell the suit premises after receiving advance consideration but they denied the existence of the agreement in their pleading. Such conduct of the defendants in our opinion, disentitle them to ask the Court for exercising discretion in their favour by refusing to grant a decree for specific performance. Further, if a party to a lis does not disclose all material facts truly and fairly but states them in distorted manner and mislead the Court, the Court has inherent power to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in order to prevent abuse of the process of law.” 24. In the result, we hold that the plaintiff has succeeded in proving his case and was thus entitled to decree of specific performance, he having paid huge amount of Rs.22 lakhs to the defendant. In the result, we hold that the plaintiff has succeeded in proving his case and was thus entitled to decree of specific performance, he having paid huge amount of Rs.22 lakhs to the defendant. The impugned judgment and decree is therefore reversed and the plaintiff's suit is decreed. The defendant is held liable under the law to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the property in dispute situated in Koni, Revenue Circle- Bilaspur (CG), P.H. No.17, khasra no.223/3 and 225/1, area 0.07 and 0.18 acres (total 0.25 acres), upon receiving balance consideration amount of Rs.9,25,000/- and the plaintiff is entitled to get sale deed executed and registered in his favour upon payment of balance amount. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to cost throughout.