K. RAMAMOORTHY ( 1 ) THE plaintiff has filed I. A. 7741/95 for injunction restraining the defendant from creating third party interest in respect of the 1/6th undivided share in the property bearing No. R-7b, Green Park Extension, New Delhi and restrain the defendant from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff from the first and second floor and the incidental areas attached to the property. The case of the plaintiff briefly stated is this. The property mentioned above admeasuring 200 sq. yds. approximately was jointly owned by Shri Hakim Rai and Smt. Kishan Devi, each having half share. On 18. 8. 72 Hakim Rai died. He had written a Will bequeathing 1/2 undivided share in favour of his wife Smt Kishan Devi and two sons Jagdish Chand and Harish Chand, who is now the defendant, by which each became entitled to 1/3rd share. Smt. Kishan Devi executed a relinquishment deed in respect of 4/6th undivided share by executing a registered deed in favour other son Jagdish Chand. Thus, Jagdish Chand became entitled to 5/6th and Harish Chand, the defendant became entitled to 1/6th. In the public records mutation was effected showing the 5/6th share in the name of Jagdish Chand and 1/6th share in the name of Harish Chand. Jagdish sold his 5/6th undivided share to the plaintiff Co. by two registered saledeeds dated 18. 3. 95 and 20. 4. 95. The defendant being the owner of l/6th share agreed to sell the property on 19. 9. 94 for a total consideration of Rs. 6,20,000. 00 and the agreement is evidenced by a receipt dated 19. 9. 94. According to the plaintiff, a sum of Rs. 50,000. 00 was paid as advance and the balance of Rs. 5,70,000. 00 was to be paid at the time of the registration of the sale deed after the defendant obtaining mutation in his favour from Municipal Corporation of Delhi and obtaining requisite permisons at the time of the registration of the documents of sale. The document relied on by the plaintiff embodied the essential terms of the agreement of sale obliging the defendant to get the mutation and requisite permission from the competent authority. In or about 17. 3. 95 the defendant approached the plaintiff and requested the plaintiff to pay, out of the balance of Rs. 5,70,000. 00, a sum of Rs. 70,000. The document relied on by the plaintiff embodied the essential terms of the agreement of sale obliging the defendant to get the mutation and requisite permission from the competent authority. In or about 17. 3. 95 the defendant approached the plaintiff and requested the plaintiff to pay, out of the balance of Rs. 5,70,000. 00, a sum of Rs. 70,000. 00 which could be adjusted against the balance to enable the defendant to obtain permission from the concerned authorities so that the sale could be executed expeditiously. The plaintiff paid the sum of Rs. 70,000. 00 by Pay Order No. 7605118dated 18. 3. 95 drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank, Green Park Extension. Thus in all the plaintiff paid Rs. 1,20,000. 00 The defendant obtained mutation on 28. 4. 95 from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi but failed to obtain permission from the Income Tax Authorities. According to the plaintiff, deliberately the defendant has been trying to avoid the execution of the sale deed even though the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform its part of the contract. With these allegations, the plaintiff has prayed for the relief of specific performance and mandatory injunction, in the alternative decree for recovery of Rs. 10 lakhs towards damages and return of Rs. 1,20,000/ ( 2 ) THE defendant had filed the written statement contending inter-alia that there was no agreement between the defendant and the plaintiff. The alleged receipt projected is a rank forgery and the plaintiff and the brother of the defendant had hatched a conspiracy to grab at the property. The defendant repudiates the claim of the plaintiff that the mother Kishan Devi executed a relinquishment deed in favour of Jagdish Chand. According to the defendant, Kishan Devi executed a Will on 27. 10. 85 bequeathing her half share in the property to the defendant and his wife Smt. Amrit Lata. The defendant and his wife had filed a Probate case No. 347/88 propounding the Will of Kishan Devi. There is another suit No. 2407/92 filed by Jagdish Chand against the defendant is also pending in the lower court for a declaration that Jagdish Chand is entitled to 5/6th share and the same was coming up for hearing on 16. 10. 95. There is another suit No. 2407/92 filed by Jagdish Chand against the defendant is also pending in the lower court for a declaration that Jagdish Chand is entitled to 5/6th share and the same was coming up for hearing on 16. 10. 95. It is stated by the defendant that while the alleged relinquishment deed, which was of the year 1972, the brother Jagdish Chand applied for mutation 17 years after relinquishment and any transaction by Jagdish for the sale "of his alleged 5/6th share is abinitio void and illegal. It is also claimed by the defendant that he had objected to the claim of mutation made by Jagdish Chand before the M. C. D. , Hauz Khas. The defendant in paragraph 5 ofthe written statement has also referred to criminal proceedings stating that an attempt of murder was made on his life by one of the directors of the plaintiff. It is asserted by the defendant that tenants are in possession of the property. The plaintiff was never in possession because Jagdish Chand was never in possession of the property. Regarding the allegation of payment of Rs. 70,000. 00 in March 95 the defendant denied it. ( 3 ) ABOUT this payment of Rs. 70,000. 00 something more has to be said even at this stage because on 29. 1. 96 when the matter w as argued learned counsel Mr. H. L. Tikku for the plaintiff submitted a certificate from Punjab and Sind Bank which reads as follows :- "to whom so ever it may concern This is to certify that we had encashed our pay order No. 7605118 dt. 18. 3. 95 for Rs. 70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand Only) favouring Mr. Harish Jhamb. The said pay order was issued from CA. 2532 of Mr. Gochwal Leasing and Finance Pvt Ltd. The said mentioned cheque was presented in clearing on 23. 3. 95 through PNB, Green Park Ext. New Delhi. "according to the learned counsel for the plaintiff the pay order for Rs. 70,000. 00 had been encashed and, therefore, it must have reached the defendant. The defendant in the written statement in paragraph 8 has narrated as to how the story of the plaintiff can never be true in the following terms :- "the backdrop of the story is that the defendant gave 1st and IInd Floor on lease for a monthly rent of Rs. 60,000. The defendant in the written statement in paragraph 8 has narrated as to how the story of the plaintiff can never be true in the following terms :- "the backdrop of the story is that the defendant gave 1st and IInd Floor on lease for a monthly rent of Rs. 60,000. 00 (Rupees sixty thousand) plus Rs. 40,000. 00 (Rupees forty thousand) as maintenance charges to Sri Balabh Mimani in the month of January dated 23, 1995. The defendant received Rs. 1,20,000. 00 as Security deposit (as rent for two months) and Rs. 60,000. 00 as advance rent for the month of February, 1995, by way of cross cheques. Similarly received Rs. 1,20,000. 00 in cash towards maintenance charges. Thereafter he received a demand draft of Rs. 70,000. 00 and Rs. 30,000/- in cash as rent and maintenance charges for the next moth. Further, rent and maintenance charges for subsequent months are now due to the defendant. The plaintiff through its Director, Shri Anil Dalal, manipulated this receipt in his favour with the connivance of Shri Balabh Mimani and Shri Jagdish Jhamb. This allegation of the plaintiff is cogent as the alleged application of mutation of 1 1/6th share is dated 24. 4. 1995. As stated earlier, Shri Anil Dalal, coming to know about the dispute between tw o brothers regarding title to the property in dispute, met Shri Jagdish Chand Jhamb and after hatching a conspiracy with him and Shri Balabh Mimani, procured the above receipt from Shri Balabh Mimani to make it the proof of further alleged payment towards the sale proceeds/price of the alleged 1 1/6th share in the property in dispute. The defendant stoutly denies the receipt of Rs, 70,000. 00 towards any sale consideration. 9. The allegation that the plaintiff believed in the truth of defendant s representations and paid Rs. 1,20,000. 00 is simply false and baseless, and is denied. The receipt of Rs. 50,000/- is forged and no amount of Rs. 70,000. 00 was paid by the plaintiff and received by the defendant for any purpose much less as towards the sale consideration. "in paragraph 13 again the defendant has set out about the story of the bank draft and it is as follows :- "the allegation of the plaintiff that it is willing and ready to perform his part of the contract is condemned. "in paragraph 13 again the defendant has set out about the story of the bank draft and it is as follows :- "the allegation of the plaintiff that it is willing and ready to perform his part of the contract is condemned. There was no agreement by the defendant with the plaintiff in this behalf. The defendant is in lawful possession of the area marked "pink". The defendant gave possession of first and second floor to Shri Balabh Mimani of M/s. Saraswati Ceramics and Refactories and not to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is therefore in unlawful and illegal possession of the property. It is also possible that M/s. Saraswati Ceramics may be an establishment of the plaintiff and therefore the photo copy of the bank draft for Rs. 70,000. 00 might have been given by Shri Balabh Mimani to Mr. Anil Dalal". ( 4 ) A very forceful argument was advanced by Mr. P. P. Malhotra, learned senior counsel for the defendant and, in my view, it is unanswerable. He submitted that the property is worth more than Rs. 2 crores and when there is litigation pending between the parties in the normal course of events no man with his head on his shoulders could have agreed to sell the property for Rs. 6,20,000. 00 and the plaintiff is guilty of fraud. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the plaintiff Mr. H. L. Tikku vehemently contended that when the defendant issued receipt on 19. 9. 94 he must have thought over these things and the plaintiff has no objection to the examination of signatures by an expert and when the plaintiff has acted in accordance with the terms of the. agreement evidenced by the receipt the defendant cannot resile and try to defeat the rights of the plaintiff. The learned senior counsel Mr. Malhotra submitted that the brother of the defendant Jagdish Chand was never in possession of the property. Even the sale deed produced by the plaintiff now, would show the address of the defendant Jagdish Chand being different from the suit property. It was only the defendant who was collecting rents as has been mentioned in the written statement. I saw the sale deed and the address of the brother of defendant Jagdish Chand is different and the recital in the document is that symbolic possession is given to the plaintiff. It was only the defendant who was collecting rents as has been mentioned in the written statement. I saw the sale deed and the address of the brother of defendant Jagdish Chand is different and the recital in the document is that symbolic possession is given to the plaintiff. ( 6 ) ON a consideration of the entire materials, I am not able to resist the feeling the plaintiff is acting in collusion with the brother of the defendant and no reference is made to the proceedings pending between the brothers in the suit. The plaintiff is guilty of suppressing all material facts and the receipt also appears to be not a genuine document, prima facie. I do not want to consider other matters for the purpose of deciding this application for injunction. The plaintiff would not have been put in possession by the brother. It is only on the strength of the ad-interim order plaintiff is trying to disturb the possession of the defendant. The matter is still made clearer by the plaintiffs themselves asking for police help in IA. 7933/95 implementing the interim order passed by this Court on 31st of July 1995. This is only because to show how the plaintiffs are trying to use the process of law. The I. A. 7933/95 for police help is dismissed. It is well settled that a person who has not approached the Court with clean hands is not entitled to any indulgence. Learned counsel for the plaintiff Mr. H. L. Tikku argued that a local commissioner can be appointed to ascertain the fact that plaintiff is in possession of the property. That is an attempt to drive the thin end of the wedge. Having deliberately filed a suit with false averments the plaintiff is now projecting a case that it was put in possession of the property by the brother of the defendant. The alleged sale deed executed by the defendant s brother in favour of the plaintiff is hit by the doctrine of lis-pendens. It cannot convey any rights to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not produced am material to show that on the date of suit the brother Jagdish Chand was exercising any act of possession and the recitals in the sale deed would betray the claim of the plaintiff. It cannot convey any rights to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not produced am material to show that on the date of suit the brother Jagdish Chand was exercising any act of possession and the recitals in the sale deed would betray the claim of the plaintiff. I also accept, prima facie, the case of the defendant with reference to the encashment of the pay order of Rs. 70,000. 00 ( 7 ) HAVING regard to the above circumstances, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff has been trying to be very smart and has not made out any prima facie case. The learned counsel for the plaintiff Mr. Tikku relied on the decision reported in M/s. Nanak Builders and Investors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sh. Vinod Kumar Alag, 1990 (4) Delhi Lawyers 119, to show that on the basis of a receipt which contains the bargain between the parties relief for specific performance can be claimed. That proposition cannot be disputed and that is not the position here. Prima facie, I am of the view that the sale deed relied on by the plaintiff cannot at all cloth the plaintiff with am right. It is significant to notice that the sale deed was not filed along with the plaint. The receipt dated 19. 9. 94, prima facie, appears to be a forged one. Therefore, LA. 7741/95 is dismissed and IA 11294/95 filed by the defendant under Order 39 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code to vacate the interim order is allowed. The plaintiff has come forward with a false case. Therefore, it cannot escape without costs. The plaintiff shall pay a sum of Rs. 10,000. 00 as costs to the Legal Aid and Advice Board, Delhi High Court Chambers, New Delhi, within two weeks from today. ( 8 ) PLAINTIFF has filed this application under Order 11 Rules 12 to 16 and 18 claiming that there should be a direction to the defendant to produce the following documents :- "a) direct the defendant to discover on oath and produce the documents on record in its power and possession relating to matters in the suit, specifically the documents mentioned in paragraph No. 4 above; b) ex parte order in terms of prayer (a) above. " ( 9 ) IT does not require any argument to show that this is purely a device to butteress the false case of the plaintiff. I will be doing great injustice if I entertain this petition. The plaintiff must be aware that Will dated 27. 10. 85 had been filed in the Probate case pending between the brothers. The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that before taking up the application for injunction and the petition under Order 39 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code this I. A. should be disposed of. I am afraid, that is the unkindest cut of all. I can not entertain this petition. It is dismissed. ( 10 ) IA. 7741/95 filed by plaintiff is dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000. 00, to be deposited with Delhi Legal Aid and Advice Board and IA. 11294 filed by defendant under Order 39 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code is allowed. IAs. 7933/95 and 12150/95 filed by plaintiff are dismissed. S. No. 1749/95 Post the matter for further proceedings on 21st of May 1996.