Judgment : This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree of the learned second Additional District Judge, Salem, dated 18. 1987 in A.S.No.39 of 1987, reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court in O.S.No.418 of 1983 dated 12. 1987. .2. The defendants are the appellants, The short facts which are necessary for the purpose of this appeal are: The respondents/ plaintiffs instituted the suit for specific performance against the appellants/ defendants that they orally agreed to sell the suit property for a sum of Rs.20,000 and received an advance of Rs.5,000. The appellants agreed to discharge the mortgage debt due to the Agricultural Co-operative Society, Gajjalnaickenpatti and also to clear the arrears payable to the Electricity Department for service connection No.174 out of the advance amount. On 16. 1983, appellants 1 and 2 for themselves and the second appellant as the guardian for the minor appellants, executed the sale deed Ex.A-1 and delivered possession of the suit property to the respondents on the same day. As the mortgage debt and the amount payable to the Electricity Department were found to be not paid by the appellants, the sale deed could not be presented for registration. The respondents/ plaintiffs are always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and the appellants are postponing to perform their part of the contract. The respondents have deposited the balance amount of Rs.15,000 in the Indian Overseas Bank in the Savings Bank Account No.14950. The first appellant/ first defendant filed a written statement adopted by appellants 2 to 4. It was contended therein that the respondents/ plaintiffs agreed to purchase the property for a sum of Rs.42,000 and the allegations that they agreed to sell the same for Rs.20,000 is not true. To avoid stamp duty the respondents got the sale deed Ex.A-1 executed for a sum of Rs.20,000 and they agreed to pay the balance of Rs.35,000. It is true the appellants received a sum of Rs.5,000 as the advance. Since the balance of Rs.35,000 was not paid and disputes arose between the parties about the same, Ex.A-1 was not registered. The allegation that possession of the property was delivered on the date of Ex.B-1 is not true. The respondents/ plaintiffs were never ready and willing to pay the balance of Rs.35,000 and perform their part of the contract. Since the balance of Rs.35,000 was not paid and disputes arose between the parties about the same, Ex.A-1 was not registered. The allegation that possession of the property was delivered on the date of Ex.B-1 is not true. The respondents/ plaintiffs were never ready and willing to pay the balance of Rs.35,000 and perform their part of the contract. The respondents asked the appellants to return back the advance amount of Rs.5,000 and told them that they would get the sale deed cancelled and get refund of the amount paid for the stamp. The seventh defendant filed a separate written statement adopted by the fifth defendant that the well in Survey No.125/4 is a common well, in which he and his brother Pachamuthu, the fifth respondent are entitled to one third share. Defendants 1 and 2 entitled to one third share. Palaniappan and his five brothers are entitled to the remaining one third share. The electric motor and pumpset exclusively belong to the seventh defendant and his brother, in which the other sharers have no right. The electric motor fixed in the well fell into disrepair and it was removed for effecting repairs. As the suit was filed for specific performance, the motor was not fixed after the repairs and the suit is not maintainable. .3. On the above pleadings of the parties, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem, formulated the necessary issues. On a consideration of the evidence placed before him, both oral and documentary the learned trial Judge reached the conclusion that the appellants agreed to sell the property for Rs.20,000 only, and not for Rs.42,000. .On the issue of delivery of possession, the learned trial Judge held that possession continued with appellants 1 and 2 only and possession of the properties was not delivered to the plaintiffs/ respondents on there date of Ex.A-1 The learned trial Judge also concluded that the respondents/ plaintiffs ought to have presented Ex.A-1 sale deed for compulsory registration and without doing it, the suit filed straightaway for specific performance is not maintainable and ultimately dismissed the suit without costs. 4. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiffs preferred A.S.No.39 of 1987 on the file of the District Judge, Salem. 4. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiffs preferred A.S.No.39 of 1987 on the file of the District Judge, Salem. The learned Second Additional District Judge, on a reappraisal of the evidence and on a consideration of the submission made by the learned counsel for both the parties, held that the defendants agreed to sell the property only for Rs.20,000 and the allegations that they agreed to sell it for Rs.42,000 is not true. It was further held by him that possession was never handed over by the defendants to the plaintiffs and the recitals in Ex.A-1 that possession was handed over on the date of Ex.A-1 is a later insertion amounting to material alternation. However, the learned First Appellate Judge allowed the appeal on the ground that suit as framed is maintainable and the plaintiffs are entitled to approach the civil court without presenting the sale deed for compulsory registration. He directed the defendants to execute the sale deed free of all encumbrances within a period of three months and directed the plaintiffs to deposit the balance amount of Rs.15,000 in the lower court on or before 19. 1887. If defendants 1 to 4 failed to execute the sale deed and get it registered within the said period of three months, the plaintiffs are at liberty to get the sale deed executed through court. The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Judge is being challenged in this appeal. 5. The prayer in the plaint reads as follows: “Therefore the plaintiffs humbly pray that the court may be pleased to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiffs; (a) directing the defendants 1 and 2 to execute the sale deed free of encumbrances in favour of the plaintiffs after receiving the balance of Rs.15,000 for themselves and 2nd defendant for herself and on behalf of minor defendants 3 and 4 within the time stipulated by this Hon’ble Court; (b) if the defendants failed to execute the sale deed and get it registered within the time stipulated by this Honourable Court, this Court may execute the sale deed on behalf of defendants; (c) awarding costs of this suit; and (d) grant such other and further reliefs which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of this case and render justice.” 6. The learned counsel for the appellants/ defendants contended the sale deed had already been executed and, therefore, there is no question of executing the sale deed once again unless the respondents/ plaintiffs have prayed that the sale deed has to be executed afresh. Further there is no unity of contract so far as the sale consideration is concerned. It was argued that as per the appellants the sale considerations agreed to be paid is Rs.42,000 and not Rs.20,000. Further, both the courts below have concurrently found that the statement made by the plaintiffs that possession of the property had been delivered to them on the date of Ex.A-1, namely, 16. 1983 is not a true statement and that possession has not been delivered. It was pointed out that the relief of specific performance is a discretionary relief and the plaintiff who is seeking that discretionary relief has to approach the court with clean hands. It was submitted that the pure fountains of justice cannot be allowed to be tainted with unclean hands and a discretionary relief cannot be granted to a person whose statement is found to be untrue. 7. The next contention that had been put forward on behalf of the appellants is after the sale deed Ex.A-1 had been executed, the respondents/ plaintiffs ought to have presented the same for compulsory registration and the defendants/appellants were unwilling to register it and without resorting to the above, approaching the civil court directly for the relief of specific performance is illegal and the learned First Appellate Judge is not correct in entertaining the suit and reversing the finding of the learned trial Judge. 8. So far as the sale consideration is concerned, both the courts below have concurrently held the agreed sale price is only Rs.20,000 and not Rs.42,000 as contended by the appellants/ defendants. The same being a question of fact, it has become final and this Court cannot interfere with the said finding of fact. Therefore, I accept that the agreed sale price is only Rs.20,000 and not Rs.42,000. 9. The same being a question of fact, it has become final and this Court cannot interfere with the said finding of fact. Therefore, I accept that the agreed sale price is only Rs.20,000 and not Rs.42,000. 9. Regarding the question of delivery of possession of the property on the date of Ex.A-1, the trial court has framed issue No.1 as follows: meaning, “Whether possession of the suit properties had been delivered by the defendantse” The First Appellate Judge has framed point No.2 in the following words: “Whether the possession of the suit properties was handed over to the appellants as alleged in para. 4 of the plainte” 10. On an appreciation of the evidence, both the courts below found that possession of the suit properties was not handed over to the respondents/plaintiffs on the date of Ex.A-1, namely, 16. 1983 and possession always remained with the vendors. the defendants. It had been held by both the courts below that there respondents plaintiffs have not produced any documentary evidence, namely, kist receipts or acceptable oral evidence that possession was delivered on the date of Ex.A-1 and therefore they are cultivating the suit properties. As a matter of fact, the first appellate Judge also found the sale deed Ex.A-1 had been materially tampered with and the following words Tamil meaning, “The possession of the properties under sale had been handed over to the plaintiffs” have been added in a different ink in the fourth sheet of Ex.A-1. In spite of the above, the learned First Appellate Judge had granted a decree for specific performance. It is unfortunate that the learned first appellate Judge had not discussed about the effect of the material alternation. Though the learned counsel for the respondents/ plaintiffs made an attempt to argue that no issue or point for determination had been formulated by the courts below regarding the delivery of possession, when this Court pointed out issue No.1 of the trial court and point No.2 of the First Appellate Judge, the learned counsel for the defendants agreed that necessary issue and point for determination had been formulated and a discussion had been made and finding has been rendered that possession of the suit properties was not handed over by the defendants to the plaintiffs, but possession always remained with the appellants/ defendants. The respondents plaintiff during the course of the evidence have not explained the circumstances under which the above words have been inserted in a different ink in the fourth sheet of Ex.A-1. In the above circumstances, I am clearly of the opinion that Ex.A-1 had been materially altered by the plaintiffs/ respondents. 11. In the fact situation above, I am inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants/ defendants that the plaintiffs/ respondents have not approached the court with clean hands and the discretionary relief of specific performance cannot be granted to them. 12. So far as the question whether the plaintiffs/ respondents can approach the civil court directly without presenting the sale deed Ex.A-1 for compulsory registration, the learned trial Judge has held in the negative, whereas the first appellate Judge found that they are entitled to do so. The learned trial Judge placing reliance on the decision reported in Ellammal v. Rengaswamy Gounder and others Ellammal v. Rengaswamy Gounder and others Ellammal v. Rengaswamy Gounder and others 1981 T.L.N.J. 408 concluded that they are not entitled to approach the civil court straightaway without presenting Ex.A-1 for compulsory registration. The learned trial Judge, however, distinguished the decision by stating that if third party rights are involved, namely if the property in question has been sold to some other third party, no relief can be obtained from the registration authorities by presenting the document from compulsory registration and the only remedy is to file a suit in a civil court. It is observed by the learned trial Judge that in the case on hand, no third party right is involved and, therefore, the plaintiffs/ respondents ought to have presented the document for compulsory registration and, therefore, the suit filed in the civil court is not maintainable, The learned first appellate Judge has not made any discussion about this point in his judgment, but has said that there is no bar to file a suit. I find difficulty in accepting the reasoning of the learned first appellate Judge. 13. I find difficulty in accepting the reasoning of the learned first appellate Judge. 13. Taking into consideration that the plaintiffs respondents approached the civil court by making a false representation that possession of the property has been delivered to him on the date of the sale deed Ex.A-1 and also materially altered the document by inserting the words in Tamil that possession has been delivered and they have not approached the courts with clean hands, they are not entitled to the discretionary relied the specific performance. It is unnecessary to probe the matter any further and make a lengthy discussion in respect of the other aspects. 14. The prayer in the plaint would show that the defendants/ appellants should be directed to execute a sale deed. I have already pointed out that the sale deed Ex.A-1 had already been executed and, therefore, there is no question of executing the sale deed once again. The respondents/ plaintiffs have not prayed to direct the defendants/ appellants to execute a fresh sale deed. The learned counsel for the respondent/ plaintiffs submitted this Court may direct the defendants/ appellants to register the document Ex.A-1. I am afraid that such a direction consent he given on the jurisdiction of registering the document lies with the registration department. 15. For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the First Appellate Judge has committed an error in granting the discretionary relief of specific performance when he found that possession of the property was not delivered by the appellants/ defendants and the representation of the plaintiffs/ respondents that possession was delivered on the date of Ex.A-1 is not true and the sale deed Ex.A-1 has been materially altered. 16. In the result, the second appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree of the learned First Appellate Judge are set aside that of the learned trial Judge are restored. The suit in O.S.No.418 of 1983 on the file of the learned Additional Sub Judge, Salem, is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.