JUDGMENT : ASHOK S. KINAGI, J. 1. This RSA is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 18.03.2015 passed in R.A. No.29 of 2014 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore and the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2013 passed in O.S. No.287 of 2013 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru District, Bengaluru. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their ranking before the Trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondents were the defendants. 3. Brief facts of the case leading rise to the filing of this appeal are follows. 4. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for specific performance of a contract. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant No.1 is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and he agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a valid consideration and accordingly executed a sale agreement on 18.06.2001 and it was agreed that the sale was to be concluded within 4 months from the date of execution of the sale agreement and the plaintiff paid Rs. 51,000/- to defendant No.1 out of sale consideration of Rs. 1,92,700/-. Defendant No.1 after receiving the earnest money executed a sale agreement. The plaintiff requested defendant No.1 to receive the balance sale consideration amount and executed a registered sale deed. Defendant No.1 neither received the balance sale consideration amount nor executed a registered sale deed. The plaintiff issued a legal notice on 09.01.2002 calling upon defendant No.1 to receive the balance sale consideration amount and execute a registered sale deed. Defendant No.1 replied to the said legal notice admitting the execution of a sale agreement but denied that the plaintiff was/is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. 5. It is contended that defendant No.1 was in need of money and as the plaintiff did not pay the balance sale consideration amount, defendant No.1 sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.2. In view of the denial of execution of a registered sale deed by defendant No.1, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for specific performance of a contract. In view of the denial of execution of a registered sale deed by defendant No.1, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for specific performance of a contract. It is contended that defendant No.1 in part performance of the contract, delivered the possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Hence, prays to decree the suit. 6. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement admitting the execution of a sale agreement and contended that the plaintiff did not pay the balance sale consideration amount and defendant No.1 was in need of money and hence, sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.2 and executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 and defendant No.2 is in possession of the suit schedule property. It is also contended that the plaintiff has inserted a sentence regarding the possession of the suit schedule property in the agreement of sale after its execution. The plaintiff has failed to prove that the plaintiff was/is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit against defendant No.1. 7. Defendant No.2 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and contended that defendant No.1 was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and he sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.2 for a valuable consideration and executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 and defendant No.2 is the owner of the suit schedule property, the possession of which was delivered to him. Defendant No.2 is the bona fide purchaser of the suit schedule property for value without notice. It is also contended that the plaintiff has inserted a sentence regarding the delivery of possession of the suit schedule property in the agreement of sale after its execution. Hence, the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands. Hence, there is no cause of action to file the suit, as such the cause of action shown in the plaintiff is imaginary and prays, to dismiss the suit. 8. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues: 1. Whether plaintiff proves that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract? 2. 8. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues: 1. Whether plaintiff proves that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract? 2. Whether defendant No.1 proves that time was essence of the contract? 3. Whether plaintiff proves that defendant No.1 to defeat the rights of the plaintiff, alienated the property in favour of defendant No.2 and defendant No.2 knowing about the agreement of sale executed in favour of the plaintiff, has purchased the suit property. Hence, said alienation is not binding to the rights of the plaintiff? 4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of the contract or in alternative entitled for refund of the earnest money and damages? 5. What order or decree? 9. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case examined himself as PW1, examined two witnesses as PW2 and PW3; marked 14 documents as Exhibits P1 to P14. 10. In rebuttal, defendant No.1 was examined as DW1 and defendant No.2 was examined as DW2 and defendants got marked 25 documents as Exhibits D1 to D25. 11. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides and assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1, 2 and 4 in affirmative; issue No.3 in the negative; and issue No.5 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiff to the extent of specific performance of contract was dismissed and the Trial Court directed defendant No.1 to refund the earnest money of Rs. 51,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum to the plaintiff from the date of agreement till the amount was fully realised. 12. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit for specific performance of contract, preferred an appeal in R.A. No.29 of 2014 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore District, Bangalore. 13. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration: "1. Whether the appellant has made out valid grounds to set aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.no.287/2003 dated 22.10.2013 on the file of the II Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural district, Bengaluru? 2. Whether the appellant has made out valid ground to interfere with the findings given by the trial Court? 3. What order?" 14. Whether the appellant has made out valid grounds to set aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.no.287/2003 dated 22.10.2013 on the file of the II Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural district, Bengaluru? 2. Whether the appellant has made out valid ground to interfere with the findings given by the trial Court? 3. What order?" 14. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, answered point Nos.1 and 2 in the negative; and point No.3: as per the final order; The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed that the Trial Court's judgment, vide its judgment dated 18.03.2015 and modified the judgment regarding the interest rate on the earnest money, where it was increased from 6% to 18%. 15. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the impugned judgments, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 16. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the learned counsel for the defendants. 17. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that defendant No.1 admitted regarding the execution of a sale agreement on 18.06.2001 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property and received Rs. 51,000/- as an earnest money. She submits that the plaintiff requested defendant No.1 to receive the balance sale consideration amount and execute a registered sale deed; however, despite the oral requests made by the plaintiff, defendant No.1 did not give any heed to the requests made by the plaintiff. 18. The plaintiff, to prove that he was/is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, issued a legal notice on 09.01.2002. She submits that the Trial Court has recorded a finding that the plaintiff has proved the execution of the sale agreement and his readiness and willingness. The Trial Court could have decreed the suit for specific performance of contract. On the contrary, the Trial Court has dismissed the suit for specific performance of contract. 19. She submits that the Trial Court has not properly exercised its discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. She submits that the First Appellate Court has also not properly re-appreciated the entire evidence on record and committed an error in confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Hence, she prays to allow the appeal. 20. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendants submits that defendant No.1 was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. She submits that the First Appellate Court has also not properly re-appreciated the entire evidence on record and committed an error in confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Hence, she prays to allow the appeal. 20. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendants submits that defendant No.1 was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. He agreed to sell the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff for a valuable consideration of Rs. 1,92,700/- and accordingly, received Rs. 51,000/- as an earnest money. But the plaintiff did not come forward to pay the balance sale consideration amount and get the sale deed executed. Defendant No.1 was in need of money for performing the marriage of his daughter. As the plaintiff did not pay the balance sale consideration amount, defendant No.1 sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.2 and executed a registered sale deed. He submits that the plaintiff has materially altered the agreement of sale regarding the delivery of possession of the suit schedule property. He submits that the plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 09.01.2002 and the plaintiff has not stated in the legal notice regarding the delivery of possession of the suit schedule property. He submits that the plaintiff has played fraud on defendant No.1 by making alteration in the sale agreement. 21. To buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court, in the cases of: (i) Major General Darshan Singh (Dead) by LRs. and another vs. Brij Bhushan Chaudhary (Dead) by LRs. in Civil Appeal No. 9360 of 2013 disposed of on 01.03.2024 (ii) Syed Basheer Ahmed vs. M/s Tinni Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. and Another, 2025 SCC Online SC 1799 (iii) S.P. ChengalVaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs. vs. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs. and others, (1994) 1 SCC 1 (iv) The decision of the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Padmini Raghavan vs. H.A. Sonnappa, Since Dead by his LRs. and others, ILR 2014 Kar 233 22. He submits that both the Courts below have concurrently recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and hence, both Courts below have rightly passed the impugned judgments. and others, ILR 2014 Kar 233 22. He submits that both the Courts below have concurrently recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and hence, both Courts below have rightly passed the impugned judgments. Thus, the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below are just and proper and do not call for any interference at the hands of this Court and hence, prays to dismiss the appeal. 23. This Court vide order dated 01.04.2025, admitted the appeal on the following substantial question of law: "(i) When Ex.D4 was never confronted to plaintiff or his witness, whether both courts were justified in holding that there was interpolation in Ex.P1 agreement of sale to deny relief of specific performance?" Regarding substantial question of law: 24. The plaintiff, to prove his case, examined himself as PW-1. He has deposed that defendant No.1 was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and he agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a valuable consideration and received Rs. 51,000/- towards earnest money and executed a sale agreement dated 18.06.2001. It was agreed that the sale was to be concluded within 4 months from the date of execution of the agreement of sale. The plaintiff requested defendant No.1 to receive the balance sale consideration amount and execute a registered sale deed. However, defendant No.1 did not receive the balance sale consideration amount and execute a registered sale deed. 25. The plaintiff, to prove that he was/is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, issued a legal notice on 09.01.2002,calling upon defendant No.1 to receive the balance sale consideration amount and execute a registered sale deed. Defendant No.1 replied to the legal notice, denying the execution of the sale deed. 26. 25. The plaintiff, to prove that he was/is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, issued a legal notice on 09.01.2002,calling upon defendant No.1 to receive the balance sale consideration amount and execute a registered sale deed. Defendant No.1 replied to the legal notice, denying the execution of the sale deed. 26. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, produced the following documents: • Exhibit P1 is the original sale agreement dated 18.06.2001, executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff, which discloses that defendant No.1 agreed to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiff for a valuable consideration and it was agreed that the sale was to be concluded within 4 months from the date of execution of the sale agreement; • Exhibit P2 is the copy of the notice dated 11.10.2001 issued by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1 to execute the registered sale deed within stipulated time; • Exhibit P3 is the postal acknowledgement; • Exhibit P4 is the postal cover; • Exhibit P5 is the copy of the legal notice issued by the plaintiff to defendant No.1 on 08.02.2002, wherein the plaintiff called upon the defendant No.1 to receive the balance sale consideration amount and execute a registered sale deed; • From the perusal of Exhibit P5, it does not disclose that in part performance of a contract, defendant No.1 delivered the possession of the suit schedule property; • Exhibit P6 is the Certificate of Posting; • Exhibit P7 is the Reply Notice got issued by defendant No.1 to the plaintiff dated 22.02.2002, wherein defendant No.1 has stated that the plaintiff did not comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale and the plaintiff has committed a breach of contract. It is stated that defendant No.1 was in need of money and the plaintiff did not pay the amount within the time specified in the sale agreement; • Exhibit P8 is the legal notice dated 09.01.2002 issued by the plaintiff to defendant No.1 calling upon defendant No.1 to receive the balance sale consideration amount; • Exhibit P9 is the postal receipt; • Exhibit P10 is the copy and is the acknowledgment; • Exhibit P11 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 07.01.2002 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2; • Exhibits P12, P13 and P14 are the certified copies of the RTC extracts in the respect of the suit land. 27. The plaintiff also examined two more witnesses as PW2 and PW3, who have deposed that defendant No.1 is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and he agreed to sell the suit schedule property for consideration of Rs. 1,92,700/- and the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs. 51,000/- towards the earnest money and it was agreed that the sale was to be concluded within 4 months from the date of execution of the sale agreement. 28. In rebuttal, defendant No.1 was examined as DW1, who has deposed admitting the execution of the sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff and he has deposed that the plaintiff has failed to establish that he was/is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. He has deposed that he was in need of money and agreed to sell the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff for a valuable consideration. But, the plaintiff failed to pay the balance consideration amount within 4 months from the date of execution of the sale agreement dated 18.06.2001. Thus, the plaintiff committed the breach of contract. 29. He further deposed that the plaintiff got issued a legal notice in 2002 and defendant No.1 replied to the said legal notice. He deposed that as defendant No.1 was in need of money for performing his daughter's marriage, defendant No.1 sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.2 for a valid consideration and executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 and delivered the possession of the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.2. 30. He deposed that as defendant No.1 was in need of money for performing his daughter's marriage, defendant No.1 sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.2 for a valid consideration and executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 and delivered the possession of the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.2. 30. It is deposed that defendant No.1 has never delivered the possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff at any point of time and to prove his defence, defendant No.1 produced the documents: • Exhibit D1 is the certified copy of the Letter dated 05.11.2003; • Exhibit D2 is the Certificate of Posting; • Exhibit D3 is the unregistered partition deed dated 08.04.1982; • Exhibit D4 is the copy of the agreement of sale dated 18.06.2001 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff; • Exhibit D5 is the RTC extract of suit land; • Exhibit D6 is the office copy of the legal notice; • Exhibit D7 is the certified copy of the order; • Exhibit D8 is the certified copy of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner; • Exhibits D9 and D10 are the mutation extracts, which disclose that the name of defendant No.2 was mutated in the revenue records based on the registered sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2; • Exhibits D11 to D16 are the tax paid receipts; • Exhibits D17 to 25 are the RTC extracts, which disclose the name of defendant No.2, entered in the revenue records as an owner and possessor of the suit schedule property. 31. Defendant No.2 was examined DW-2 and she reiterated the written statement averments in the examination-in-chief. 32. From the perusal of the entire evidence on record, it is evident that there is no dispute regarding the ownership of defendant No.1 over the suit schedule property and also execution of the sale agreement by defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 has specifically pleaded in the written statement that the plaintiff did not come forward to pay the balance sale consideration amount and get the registered sale deed executed. The plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Defendant No.1 has specifically pleaded in the written statement that the plaintiff did not come forward to pay the balance sale consideration amount and get the registered sale deed executed. The plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Though the Trial Court has recorded a finding that the plaintiff has proved the execution of the sale agreement and his readiness and willingness, the plaintiff has pleaded in the plaint that in part performance of the contract, possession of the suit property was delivered in favour of the plaintiff. 33. Prior to the filing of this suit, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to defendant No.1 on 09.01.2002 as per Exhibit P8. From the perusal of Exhibit P8, it is evident that there is no reference about the delivery of possession in part performance of the contract. 34. The plaintiff has produced the original sale agreement dated 18.06.2001 vide Exhibit P1, which discloses that the plaintiff got inserted a sentence regarding the delivery of possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff in the sale agreement. 35. As per the terms and conditions of the sale agreement, the sale was to be concluded between the parties to the agreement, within 4 months from the date of execution of the said sale agreement. The plaintiff did not show his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract within the time stipulated in the sale agreement. 36. Both Courts below have recorded a finding that defendant No.1 admitted regarding the execution of the sale agreement, but denied the execution of Exhibit P2 and also regarding the delivery of possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. Further, there is no reference about Exhibit P2, either in the legal notice or in the plaint. 37. It is well settled that any amount of evidence without the pleading is of no consequences. 38. The plaintiff has produced Exhibit P2. As observed above there is no reference about Exhibit P2 either in the legal notice or in the plaint. 39. Both Courts below have concurrently recorded a finding that there is a material alteration in the sale agreement. The relief of specific performance is a discretionary relief. The specific performance can be granted to a person who comes to the Court with clean hands. 39. Both Courts below have concurrently recorded a finding that there is a material alteration in the sale agreement. The relief of specific performance is a discretionary relief. The specific performance can be granted to a person who comes to the Court with clean hands. From the perusal of the records, it is apparent that there is a material alteration in Exhibit P1. 40. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Major General Darshan Singh (Dead) by LRs. and another (supra) has held in paragraph 14 as follows: "14. As observed earlier, the relief of a specific performance is a discretionary and equitable. Considering the plaintiff's conduct of making a false and/or incorrect statements in the plaint, which were very material, we hold that the plaintiffs are disentitled to a relief of specific performance." 41. Admittedly, in the instant case, though the plaintiff has pleaded in the plaint regarding the delivery of possession in part performance of the contract, but there is no averment in the legal notice about the delivery of possession of the suit schedule property, if at all if the possession of the suit property was delivered in part-performance of the contract, the plaintiff could have mentioned the same in the legal notice itself. The plaintiff has made a false statement regarding the delivery of possession. 42. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Padmini Raghavan (supra) has held in paragraph 36, which reads as follows: "36. Therefore, once the evidence on record shows that a material alteration is made in a deed, after its execution, without the consent of the party liable under it, the deed is rendered void from the time of the alteration so as to prevent the person who has made or authorised the alteration from putting the deed in suit to enforce against a party bound by it, who did not consent to the alteration, any obligation, covenant, or promise thereby undertaken or made because the material alteration varies the rights, liabilities and legal position of the parties as ascertained by the deed in its original state. It varies the legal effect of the instrument as originally expressed. It prejudices the party bound by the deed as originally executed. The effect of making such an alteration without the consent of the party bound is exactly the same as that of cancelling the deed. It varies the legal effect of the instrument as originally expressed. It prejudices the party bound by the deed as originally executed. The effect of making such an alteration without the consent of the party bound is exactly the same as that of cancelling the deed. Therefore, as the above mentioned alteration substantially vary the rights and liabilities as also the legal position of the parties, they cannot be held to be anything, but material alterations and since they have been made without the consent of the first defendant, it has the effect of cancelling the deed and it is unenforceable, as on the date of the suit in law as the deed has become void and it is non est, i.e., not in existence." 43. Admittedly, in the instant case, the plaintiff has made an alteration in the sale agreement and inserted a sentence regarding the delivery of possession in his favour. As observed above, there is no reference about the delivery of possession in the legal notice issued by the plaintiff to defendant No.1. 44. A material alteration has been made by the plaintiff without the consent of defendant No.1. Thus, the said material alteration made by the plaintiff without the consent of defendant No.1 amounts to cancelling the sale agreement and the said agreement is unenforceable. 45. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Seth Loonkaran Sethia and Others Vs. Ivan E. John and Others, (1977) 1 SCC 379 held in paragraph Nos.23 to 25 as follows: “23. Question 5 : Before proceeding to determine this question, it would be well to advert to the legal position bearing on the matter. As aptly stated in para 1378 of Volume 12 of Halsbury's Laws of England (Fourth Edition) “if an alteration (by erasure, interlineation, or otherwise) is made in a material part of a deed, after its execution, by or with the consent of any party to or person entitled under it, but without the consent of the party or parties liable under it, the deed is rendered void from the time of the alteration so as to prevent the person who has made or authorised the alteration, and those claiming under him, from putting the deed in suit to enforce against any party bound by it, who did not consent to the alteration, any obligation, covenant, or promise thereby undertaken or made. 24. 24. A material alteration, according to this authoritative work, is one which varies the rights, liabilities, or legal position of the parties as ascertained by the deed in its original state, or otherwise varies the legal effect of the instrument as originally expressed, or reduces to certainty some provision which was originally unascertained and as such void, or which may otherwise prejudice the party bound by the deed as originally executed. 25. The effect of making such an alteration without the consent of the party bound is exactly the same as that of cancelling the deed.” 46. Both Courts below have considered the fact that the plaintiff had made a material alteration in Exhibit P1 and hence, declined to grant the relief of specific performance. The relief of specific performance of a contract is discretionary and equitable relief. The relief of specific performance can be granted to a person who approaches the Court with clean hands. The plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands, as he has made a false statement in the plaint and also in evidence. 47. The Courts below have concurrently recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and has committed a breach of contract and hence, have rightly held that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of specific performance of the contract and granted an alternative relief of refund of the amount. 48. Both the Courts below are justified in holding that there was an interpolation in Exhibit P1, agreement of sale and have rightly denied the relief of specific performance. 49. Though Exhibit D4 was not confronted to PW1 or his witnesses, Exhibit D4 and Exhibit P1 are one and the same. By comparing Exhibit P1 and Exhibit D4, it is apparent that Exhibit D4 is the xerox copy of Exhibit P1. From comparing Exhibit P1 with Exhibit D4, it is clear that the plaintiff has got inserted a sentence regarding the delivery of possession of the suit land in his favour, in the original agreement of sale. But, from the perusal of Exhibit D4, there is no recital as shown in Exhibit P1 regarding the delivery of possession. 50. Further, there is no cross examination by the plaintiff on Exhibit D4. Hence, there is no necessity to confront the said document to the plaintiff or his witnesses. But, from the perusal of Exhibit D4, there is no recital as shown in Exhibit P1 regarding the delivery of possession. 50. Further, there is no cross examination by the plaintiff on Exhibit D4. Hence, there is no necessity to confront the said document to the plaintiff or his witnesses. The Courts below are justified in passing of impugned judgments. 51. I do not find any error in the impugned judgments. Hence, in view of the above discussion, I answer substantial question of law in the affirmative. 52. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER: (I) The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. (II) The impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are hereby confirmed. (III) No order as to cost. (IV) At this stage, learned counsel for defendant No.2 offered to pay an additional sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the plaintiff, however, the plaintiff refused to accept the said amount. Defendant No.2 is directed to deposit Rs. 3,00,000/- before the Trial Court in the suit. (V) Pending IA(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.