Mack, J.- Appellant is the plaintiff, a Muslim Religious Society of Coimbatore, represented by its President and Secretary. The suit which the learned Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore dismissed with costs, was laid for the specific performance of a contract Exhibit A-1, dated 15th December, 1946, against the 1st defendant by which he agreed to convey to the plaintiff the suit property for Rs. 7,300. It is common ground that the society paid the 1st defendant a sum of Rs. 1,000 that day. The suit was filed on 16th October, 1947. It was. dismissed mainly on a finding that the suit agreement had been materially altered by the top and bottom portion of it, which contained a material recital on the reverse being scissored off. This is said to have contained a recital which made time given for completion, which was 30 days, the essence of the contract. The suit property, 49 cents in extent on which there was a rice mill and a residential house originally belonged to one Hussain Sahib, the late husband of Fatima Beebi the 4th defendant. Hussain Sahib became indebted to a local Nidhi who got a decree and brought the property to sale in execution in 1938. The 4th defendant, who was in residence in the house on the suit site desired to continue living there and approached the 1st defendant, who had a mortgage on the suit property and was a lessee of the rice mill on the site for about 20 years, for assistance. The 1st defendant bought the suit property from the Nidhi under a sale deed Exhibit B-6, dated 14th February, 1940, the case of the 4th defendant being that there was an understanding that he would reconvey the property to her on payment of the sale price. The 4th defendant then in 1946 sold all her rights in the entire property on 1st May, 1946, by a sale deed Exhibit A-2 to the plaintiff society. It appears that a small portion of this site had been used as a Muslim religious burial ground. It is in this back-ground that the plaintiff-society and the 1st defendant came to a settlement with the assistance of some mediators and Exhibit A-1 was written in the shop of one Raya Sahib by his clerk Krishnaswami Ayyangar (P.W. 3). Jamesha Rowther (P.W. 1) who was the President of the plaintiff-society, was present at the time. It is in this back-ground that the plaintiff-society and the 1st defendant came to a settlement with the assistance of some mediators and Exhibit A-1 was written in the shop of one Raya Sahib by his clerk Krishnaswami Ayyangar (P.W. 3). Jamesha Rowther (P.W. 1) who was the President of the plaintiff-society, was present at the time. First defendant admitted his signature on Exhibit A-1 which contains a clear agreement by him to sell the suit property as decided by mediators to the plaintiff-society. Exhibit A-1 contains an acknowledgment of receipt by the 1st defendant of Rs. 1,000 in cash, and an undertaking to execute a deed of cancellation of the sale in his favour within a period of one month and to receive the balance of consideration of Rs. 6,300 in the presence of the Registrar. A registered letter Exhibit A-3 was sent on behalf of the plaintiff-society signed by the President dated 10th January, 1947, asking the 1st defendant to receive the money and to complete the transaction. This letter was not delivered, and was returned with the endorsement that the addressee was not known and no house number was given. Exhibit A-3 was addressed to the 1st defendant T. Krishnaswami Nayudu, Town Street, Papanaickenpalayam, Coimbatore. A telegram evidenced by a receipt Exhibit A-3(b) is said to have been sent by P.W. 1 to the 1st defendant on 13th January, 1947, and another registered letter Exhibit A-3(a), dated 17th January, 1947, in an envelope which was still unopened at the time of the hearing of the appeal was also returned by the Post Office undelivered. In the suit itself summons could not be served on the ist defendant in the ordinary way, and he only made an appearance after substituted service. Prima facie it would appear as though the 1st defendant was successfully evading the plaintiff and service of these registered letters. The learned Subordinate Judge in view of his finding that the suit agreement Exhibit A-1 was materially altered did not think it necessary to go into the question as to whether it was the 1st defendant who really defaulted in not complying with his obligation under the contract. We come now to the suit agreement Exhibit A-1 from which there can be no doubt a portion has been scissored off, presumably containing a recital considered material and prejudicial to the plaintiff’s case. We come now to the suit agreement Exhibit A-1 from which there can be no doubt a portion has been scissored off, presumably containing a recital considered material and prejudicial to the plaintiff’s case. This document was not filed on 16th October, 1947, along with the plaint which was returned for its production. After some extensions of time, it was ultimately filed on 23rd December, 1947 and returned for payment of stamp duty and penalty. This was done and the plaint was numbered on 6th January, 1948. In the written statement filed on 16th June, 1948, the 1st defendant resisted specific performance on the ground that Exhibit A-1 was taken from him by undue influence and coercion and took objection to Exhibit A-1 as having been seriously mutilated since its execution with portions both at the top and bottom being scissored away. The mutilation of the document was not made an issue in the first set of no less than nine issues framed on 2nd July, 1948, but was made one of three additional issues framed on 3rd February, 1949. The 2nd and 3rd defendants were long standing lessees of portions of the site, the latter claiming to have put up an office room, a boiler room and a godown at considerable cost. The learned Subordinate Judge quite rightly negatived the contention of the 1st defendant that Exhibit A-1 was taken from him under undue influence and coercion by a number of Muslims bringing pressure to bear upon him, who threatened him with risks of trouble if he purchased this property in this Muslim locality. We are only concerned in this appeal with the obvious mutilation of the agreement Exhibit A-1. That the document has been tampered with appears to us patent on its face. The sheet of foolscap has been scissored off at the top and bottom very close to the top alone, in fact so close as to make it not only most improbable but also impossible for any ordinary writer of a document to achieve this feat without running his pen on to the table, blotter or other article on which the paper was rested. The material recital scissored off is said by the 1st defendant as D.W. 1 to have been on the reverse. The material recital scissored off is said by the 1st defendant as D.W. 1 to have been on the reverse. In order to make the last line on the front page readable with the first line on the reverse we have the Tamil letters and affixed to the first line on the reverse obviously in different ink. D.W. 1 swore that what was scissored off was a clear stipulation that within a period of one month, if there was default in completing the transaction of purchase in addition to the advance of Rs. 1,000 being forfeited, the agreement was to become unenforceable. In other words, the clause clearly and unequivocally making time the essence of the contract was scissored off in this really clumsy manner. The evidence of the then President of the society Jamesh Rowther (P.W. 1) and Bava Sahib’s clerk Krishnaswami Ayyangar (P.W. 3) who wrote Exhibit A-1 is to say the least of it thoroughly unsatisfactory. P.W. 3 gave this astonishing evidence in the box in explanation. “Paper was not available. In a note-book there were two papers which were spoiled and in also was spilt. Defendant 1 cut at the top and bottom portion. He dictated a draft. After that the (defendant 1) read from the draft and I wrote Exhibit A-1”. His replies in cross-examination to the effect that the note-book belonged to school-children and that the ink and soiling were both at the top and bottom are nothing more than gross insults to elementary judicial intelligence. His further insistence in cross-examination that the Tamil letters and in the first line of the second page were not written in a different ink is falsified by a mere glance at the document. P.W. 2 has obviously perjured himself when he swore in support of the evidence of P,W. 3 that the 1st defendant himself scissored off the top and bottom of this soiled paper before the document was written. Even P.W. 1 admitted in cross-examination that at the top of such documents the society invariably wrote a pious prayer such as “God will shower His grace on us”. We have no hesitation in accepting the evidence of the 1st defendant that Exhibit A-1 was mutilated by this recital of time being the essence of the contract being clumsily scissored off subsequent to its execution. We have no hesitation in accepting the evidence of the 1st defendant that Exhibit A-1 was mutilated by this recital of time being the essence of the contract being clumsily scissored off subsequent to its execution. The law applicable is well-settled, the rule prevalent in English Courts being also applicable in India, as was laid down by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Nathu Lal v. Gomti Kuar1. “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 thereto or person entitled thereunder but without the consent of the party or parties liable thereunder, the deed is thereby made void.” In that case the document in question was a sale deed more than 30 years old in which there were two holes, one partly eliminating a date. An allegation was made that these holes were effected subsequent to the document being filed into Court. The District Munsif found the allegation on enquiry to be baseless and decreed the suit. The decree was set aside by the Allahabad High Court, who took the view that a hole made in a document affecting a date was a material alteration which rendered the document void so that it could not be used to enforce a right to redeem. Their Lordships of the Privy Council on the particular facts of that case restored the decree of the District Munsif. In Master v. Miller2, the earliest leading case on the subject, an alteration of the date of a bill of exchange, after acceptance, whereby the payment would be accelerated was held to avoid the instrument; and no action can be afterwards brought upon it even by an innocent holder for a valuable consideration. This decision was followed in Suffell v. The Bank of England3. That was a case in which the plaintiff had bona fide purchased Bank of England notes, which had been altered by the numbers on them being erased and then substituted with the object of preventing the notes from being traced payment of the notes having been stopped. What is or is not a material alteration in a document must depend ultimately on the facts of each case. What is or is not a material alteration in a document must depend ultimately on the facts of each case. It has been defined in Nathulal v. Gomti Kuar4 as “One which varies the rights, liabilities, or legal position of the parties 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 unasertained and as such void, or may otherwise prejudice the party bound by the deed as originally executed.” Mr. Gopalaswami Iyengar has urged that this mutilation was not really material and that the plaintiff could have successfully maintained his suit on the document with the recital which the 1st defendant alleges was scissored off. There can in the first place be no doubt that the top of this document containing a recital which was considered material was scissored off. We have no hesitation in accepting the evidence of the 1st defendant that this recital related to time being the essence of the contract. There can in the next place be no doubt that this mutilation was suggested on legal or quasi-legal advice on an apprehension that the mandatory time essence clause would defeast a suit for specific performance. One thing is perfectly clear and that is that the person mutilating this document did intend to make a material alteration with a view to prejudice the 1st defendant. This in our view by itself is sufficient to render the agreement void whether the mutilation was really material or not in the sense that the suit may have succeeded without it. So far as the removal by scissoring off the mandatory time clause in the contract is concerned, even on the contract as pleaded by the 1st defendant the plaintiff-society appears to have prima facie a good case, if they could have shown that the 1st defendant made no response to registered notices and could not be traced in spite of their best endeavours in order to obtain his co-operation in the completion of the transaction. All we are prepared to say in this matter is that the persons responsible for mutilating this document have been guilty not only of most culpable conduct, but also of extremely foolish conduct in seeking to hoodwink and bam-boozle the Court in this clumsy manner. All we are prepared to say in this matter is that the persons responsible for mutilating this document have been guilty not only of most culpable conduct, but also of extremely foolish conduct in seeking to hoodwink and bam-boozle the Court in this clumsy manner. There seems to be an idea prevalent in some quarters that truth will not bring success in litigation, which can only be achieved by forgery, perjury or a complete distortion of truth. There can be no question that the suit as laid on this mutilated document Exhibit A-1, scissored off with deliberate dishonest intention must fail, the contract being thereby rendered void. At the same time we are most reluctant to dismiss this suit in toto, plaintff being a religious society having replaced P.W. I by another President. We think that in the circumstances the society should have a decree against the 1st defendant for the return of the Rs. 1,000 deposit which he admittedly received on the date of Exhibit A-1. In this connection Mr. C.A. Vaidyalingam for the 1st defendant in the course of his arguments stated the he would advise his client immediately to return this deposit. This alternative prayer was not asked for in the trial Court, nor was this necessary to enable the court to grant the plaintiff-society this relief under section 19 of the Specific Relief Act; nor when once a suit for specific performance has been dismissed would any suit lie by the society for return of this deposit. In a suit for specific performance the wide discretion a Court has in granting relief to the two parties to the contract is incapable of strict definition and must depend on the facts of each case. One of the main reasons underlying the principle that a suit on a materially altered document should be void and unenforceable is the need to penalise and punish such conduct and sometims it may be that as in Master v. Milter1 and Suffell v. The Bank of England2, the innocent have to suffer for the guilty. One of the main reasons underlying the principle that a suit on a materially altered document should be void and unenforceable is the need to penalise and punish such conduct and sometims it may be that as in Master v. Milter1 and Suffell v. The Bank of England2, the innocent have to suffer for the guilty. While granting the plaintiff-society this modified relief, we consider that legal conscience requires to be vindicated in this case by the issue of a rule against the Ex-President of this society P.W. 1 and Krishnaswami Ayyangar, P.W. 3, the clerk who wrote Exhibit A-1 to appear before us on Monday the 21st September and show cause why they should not be prosecuted for perjury on the footing of the evidence they have given in connection with this document. First defendant will recover costs to the extent to which he has succeeded in the trial Court; but in this Court we direct the parties to bear their own costs. K.S. ----- Decree modified.