Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 21

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (JD) AT NELAMANGALA

OS - 64 /2010
PLAINTIFF V/S DEFENDANT JAYAMMA

VIJAYALAKSHMI & OTHERS

Written statement filed by defendant under Order VIII Rule 1 of cpc:The defendant humbly submits as follows
1. The suit is not maintainable under law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The address of plaintiff is not correctly given, the first plaintiff is the resident of Bangalore, 2nd and 3rd defendant are residents of Tumkur and they have given wrong address in order to avoid adverse orders and repurcusssions in taking ex-parte orders on insufficient and misleading grounds before this Honble court. The plaintiffs are put to strict proof of their address and they are liable to give correct address to prosecute the case. 3. It is respectfully submitted that, the contents of para-3 is not disputed. 4. It is respectfully submitted that, the contents of para-4 is also not disputed however plaintiff have failed to explain why they have not impleaded other heirs as parties to the suit since the plaintiff is trying to establish some other rights by doing this type of fake litigation. 5. It is respectfully submitted that, the contents of para-5 is also not disputed, since from long years the facts was settled the defendants by raising such undisputed facts wanted to convey some minor falsity in major undisputed version.

6. It is respectfully submitted that, the contents of para-6 is not disputed. 7. It is respectfully submitted that, the para -7 of the plaint is half baked and mixed with false and true facts. The defendant having mines license to do quarrying work in surv ey number 42/4 is not disputed, the excavation of 30ft is also not disputed. The averments that on 0602-2010 at 11 AM the defendant and her men started illegal attempt to encroach upon the suit schedule property from the north east side to do the quarry work is the absolute lie and defendant never encroached upon suit schedule property, the allegation is put to strict proof. 8. It is respectfully submitted that, The averments in para-7 that The said high handed act of the defendant though been resisted by the plaintiffs with the help of neighbours, but as the defendant is having large number of men and materials including the coolie workers and machinery, it is quite difficult for the plaintiffs to resist their illegal act of encroachment over the portion of the suit schedule property on the north east is the absolute lie and defendant never encroached upon suit schedule property, the allegation is put to strict proof.

9. It is respectfully submitted that,

The averments in para-7 that

plaintiff went to police and police refused to take action and police directed plaintiff to go to civil court is not within the knowledge of this defendant and it is put to strict proof of the same. 10. It is respectfully submitted that, the alleged cause of action is concocted one and the alleged cause of action is liable to strict proof. Hence para 8 of the plaint is the absolute lie and defendant never encroached upon suit schedule property, the allegation is put to strict proof. 11. It is respectfully submitted that, the plaintiffs have suppressed so many facts. The Plaintiffs have not approached the Honble Court with clean hands and that, the Plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief from the Honble Court. The Plaintiffs are guilty of suppressio vari

and suggesstio falsi. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 12. It is respectfully submitted that, revenue entries in record of rights in respect of suit schedule property stands in the name of plaintiffs and this defendant has nothing to do with the suit schedule property and as to its extent. 13. It is respectfully submitted that, after plaintiff taking ex-parte order of Injunction in respect to their suit schedule property have given complaint to police and stopped entire mining work in survey number 42/4, and survey number 41/3. The said lands lie towards and after the borders of northern and western portion of suit schedule property of plaintiff. The mining operations in established boundaries of survey number 42/4 and 41/3 is in no way affecting any land portion of survey number 42/1. Inspite of such fact to make heavy loss to investments in the form of men and material of defendant, plaintiff illegally stopping mining work in survey number 42/4 and survey number 41/3. The plaintiff alleges defendant encroaching towards nort eastern portion of suit schedule property, towards nort-eastern portion of suit schedule property the Agalkuppe survey number lands and survey number survey number 41/5 lands are there without impleading such persons as defendants the plaintiff is prosecuting wrong case against wrong defendant. 14. The defendant respectfully submit her version as follows, defendant purchased the immovable property bearing number 42/1 which was later sub-phoded into 42/4 the Survey in

Kallunayakanahalli Grama, Sompura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk which is more fully described herein and herein after referred to as the WRITTEN STATEMENT SCHEDULE PROPERTY. The copy of the Sale Deed dated 03-04-1993 registered on 12-04-1993 is produced herewith as Annexure A for the kind perusal of this Honble Court. 15. It is respectfully submitted that, this defendant also purchased survey number 41/3 in the same village from its erst while owners to an extent of 1 acre 08 guntas. The copy of the Sale Deed dated 29-02-

1996 registered on 16-11-1996 is produced herewith as Annexure B for the kind perusal of this Honble Court.
16. The defendant further submit, that, since, the date of purchase the

defendant have been in peacefull possession and enjoyment of the Written statement Schedule Property without any let or hindrance from any body by exercising all rights of ownership by effecting all the revenue records in her name and by paying the taxes of the Written statement Schedule Property. The following revenue documents are produced for kind perusal of Honble court.

NO 1 2 2 3 4 5 6

DOCUMENT RTC OF SURVEY NUMBER 42/4 RTC OF SURVEY NUMBER 41/3 RR PAKKA BOOK FORM 5 ATLAS NAKAL OF SY.NO. 42/1,& 42/4 TIPPANI NAKAL AKAR BANDH TAX PAID RECIEPT

ANNEXURE C D E F G H I

17. The defendant further submit, that, the land purchased is filled with solid stone blocks and the surrounding portions of all lands are such lands and the name of grama itself shows that it is Kallunayakana halli (Kallu=stone, Nayaka=caste name, halli=village).

18.

The defendant submit, that, The defendant has other lands

around the suit schedule property with survey number 41/2 extent 16 guntas, survey no: 41/1A extent 30 guntas, survey number 41/3 and 41/4 extent 2 acre 28 guntas. The plaintiff was having mining licence for survey number 41/2 and 41/1A sanctioned vide MSC QLR 74/95-96 and this plaintiff was trying to obtain license for 42/4. At last succeeded in getting license on 22-11-2004 vide MSCQL 153/0405. The same is re-permitted after some controversy regarding patta lands owners rights and mining in it after patta land owners rights to minor minerals was recognized by High Court of Karnataka. The following documents are annexed with this written statement to show

that the Written statement license.

schedule property have valid mining

NO 1 2 3

DOCUMENT JOINT SURVEY MAP OF MINES/FOREST/REVENUE SHOWING OTHER LICENCED QUARIES MSCQL 153/04-05 DATED 22-11-2004 FOR SUIT SCHEDULE LAND DEPARTMENT OF MINES RE PERMISSION TO CONTINUE MINING DATED 19-05-2009

ANNEXURE J K L

19. The defendant submit, that, the vendors of Item number -1 of written statement schedule property of defendant herein are descendants of one Late N. Ramaiah, they are Mrs Rangamma, (wife of Late Ramaiah), A.R. Nagarajaiah, (s/o Late Ramaiah) A.R. Shivaramu (s/o Late Ramaiah) by posing themselves as only owners executed sale deed of Item number-1 of written statement schedule property for valuable consideration of Rs 12,000-00 on 03-04-1993 which was registered on 12-04-1993, and is produced as Annexure A.

20. The Plaintiffs submit, that, Later the sons of 3rd plaintiff along with her have filed a case in OS 491/1998 DATED 05-08-1998 (Bangalore CJ Sr dn) and got ex-parte T.I. order and made huge galata to stop quarrying in survey number 41/2 and 41/1A, immediately when this defendant and other elders of the family came to know that the 3rd plaintiff and her sons are heirs of A.R. Ramachandraiah and the dispute as to claim of rights are in reality, the matter is amicably settled by paying additional heavy amount of Rs four lakhs through one agreement dated 20-08-1998, the money was paid in the form of DD. Later the case was withdrawn by 3rd plaintiff and her sons herein on 21-08-1998. On 20-08-1998 itself 3rd plaintiff along with her sons executed registered consent deed. The copy of OS 491/1998, agreement, and consent deed is produced as Annexure-M, N & O respectively produced for kind perusal of Honble court.

21. The defendant further submit that, the plaintiffs still united in the joint family have thus deceived by suppressing the real facts of their family. Once again 3rd plaintiff in the name of their minor daughters of A.R. Ramachandraiah in the year 2000, demanded some funds for the family necessity and after refusal to provide such demands they made galata in the quary premises and stopped work with goonda elements during 2000. The defendant with no support from any aged male issues have settled the matter by giving repeatedly the money as and when the 3rd plaintiff and other members of plaintiff family demanded. Finally she got executed Registered consent deed on 1104-2000 from 3rd plaintiff. Court. The Copy of the consent deed is produced herewith as Annexure-P for the kind perusal of this Honble

22. The defendant further submit that, thus plaintiffs have been habitual trouble creators, and having some blackmailing attitude are doing many strange things have recently demanded defendant to pay money or to face court case. Defendant after seeing all the bad antecedents have exhausted all her efforts in satisfying the plaintiffs illegal demand for money. On 15-02-2010 evening defendant 2 came to the quary and threatened workers not to come from morning because court has stopped quarrying.

23. The Defendant submit, that The plaintiff in no way having any rights to Written statement schedule property, and in no way reserved their rights and in no way having any manner of right or title or muchless possession over written statement schedule property, are using their money, muscle, official and political power and are creating nuisance by tresspassing on the suit schedule property to stop the licensed quarry work, and also succeeded in stopping work from 16-02-2010. The defendant upto 16-02-2010 worked in survey number 41/3, (1 acre-08 guntas) and 42/4 (1 acre) totally to the extent of 2 acres 08 guntas only. The plaintiffs are in possession of land towards southern side of written statement schedule property, that is land in survey number 42/1 (2 acre 26 guntas). The defendant have nothing to do with plaintiffs lands and defendant have not encroached upon land of any other person including defendants, when there is clear

demarcation of arise.

lands and other lands around by joint survey of

Forest/Mines/Revenue department, such encroachment does not The Plaintiffs are making much galatta and scene from in the written are illegally morning of 16-02-2010 and threatening this defendant to destroy mining machinery if we continue or start work statement schedule property. Thus plaintiffs

attempting to interfere with defendants peacefull possession and enjoyment of written statement schedule property, by taking exparte orders with untrue facts. 24. It is respectfully submitted that, Without prejudice to the above contentions, this Defendant humbly submits, that, the Plaintiff have deliberately made certain false averments to suit their case against this Defendant. This Defendant further submits, that, the averments which are not specifically denied or traversed hereby are deemed to be denied as false and Plaintiffs will be put to the strict proof of the same. This Defendant craves for kind indulgence of this Honble Court and this Honble Court may be pleased to allow this Defendant to raise additional grounds, if any, at the time of hearing the suit. WHEREFORE, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, and the law applicable to such situations, it is most respectfully prayed, that, this Honble Court may be pleased to dismiss the suit filed by the Plaintiff against this Defendant along with exemplary costs in the interest of justice and equity.

WRITTEN STATEMENT SCHEDULE PROPERTY 1. All that, piece and parcel of the Immovable Property situated at

KalunayakanaHalli Grama, Sompura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore District, bearing Sy no: 42/4 consisting of 1 acre 0 guntas and bounded on: EAST BY : Plaintiffs property WEST BY : Government Land NORTH BY : Chickkathimmakka and defendants land, SOUTH BY : Rajanna and others land.

2. All that, piece and parcel of the Immovable

Property situated at

KalunayakanaHalli Grama, Sompura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore District, bearing Sy no: 41/3 consisting of 1 acre 8 guntas and bounded on: EAST BY : Defendants property and siddagangaiahs land Chickkathimmakka and defendants land WEST BY :

NORTH BY : Rajanna and others land., SOUTH BY : Defendants property and Rangammas land

ADVOCATE FOR DEFENDANT DEFENDANT VERIFICATION I, JAYAMMA ., the Defendant herein, do hereby verify and declare that, what is stated above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. Place: Nelamangala Date: 02-03-2010 DEFENDANT

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (JD) AT NELAMANGALA


OS - 64 /2010
PLAINTIFF V/S DEFENDANT JAYAMMA

VIJAYALAKSHMI & OTHERS

OBJECTIONS TO IA OF PLAINTIFF UNDER ORDER39 RULE 1&2 DEFENDANT:1. The IA is not maintainable either on facts or on law. 2. The facts sworned in the affidavit are false and misleading without coming with clean hands plaintiff wants to convey false set of allegations before the Honble court. 3. The averments in affidavit are similar to that of plaint averments and the written statement contentions, denials, and statement of facts may be read as part and parcel of this objections to IA. 4. With an illegal intention applicant wants to take some interim order from the court by showing false cause of action and wanted to stop legal mining work using interim orders. Plaintiff want to deprive true owner from the inherent rights annexed with ownership of the land. This cannot be allowed in the interest of Justice. 5. There is no prima facie case or balance of convenience in favour of plaintiff or applicant. No injury will be caused to plaintiff or applicant. If the IA is allowed, taking advantage of court order plaintiff or applicant may prolong the case since the main relief sought in the suit is exactly the same as that of interim prayer. 6. It is settled principle of law that, Interim relief cannot be granted when it amounts to granting of main reliefs.

IN THE ABOVE CASE FILED BY

7. It is settled principle of law that when suit is not maintainable interim relief cannot be granted. Here suit is not maintainable for having relied on false facts and prima facie false assertion without impleading real persons towards nort eastern side of plaint suit schedule property. 8. Injunction cannot be granted as stated under section 41(i) of the Specific Relief act when looked into the conduct of other plaintiffs and 3rd plaintiff in continuously with active collusion of some land maphia elements repeatedly black mailed defendant and settled the matter by taking money from defendant. 9. Injunction cannot be granted as stated under section 41(j) of the specific relief act when the plaintiff has no personal interest in the matter. Here plaintiff allegates encroachment towards nort-eastern side of suit schedule property, defendant is in no way connected with such property and encroachment, plaintiff is also not interested but other persons including some official and non-official land mafia elements want to create trouble to this defendant. 10. The relief sought in the IA is in the nature of mandatory injunction. Under section 39 of Specific Relief act mandatory injunctions can be granted when there is any threat to breach of an obligation. The 3rd plaintiff is having contract with defendant for having let out premises of suit schedule property for plying vehicles. The documents produced by plaintiff neither legally obligates anything upon this defendant, nor it is specifically enforceable against this defendant. It is only enforceable against the plaintiffs and in order to avoid such enforcement or to blackmail defendant this case has been filed. 11. A plaint which is manifestly vexatious and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue and taking care that the grounds mentioned in Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure are attracted, would require such plaint to be thrown out at the threshold for the reason no person would be entitled to inconvenience through the medium of the process of law.

10

12. Under principle of estoppels the plaintiffs are estopped from raising their illegal demands from their repeated conducts. When act itself is clear then granting of injunction just to create economic troubles to absolute owner is against the principles of equity. Wherefore the Honble court may be pleased to dismiss application of applicant in the interest of justice. Place: Nelamangala Date: 02-03-2010 Defendant ADVOCATE FOR DEFENDANT I do swear and affirm above contents as true and correct and sign as below. Place: Nelamangala Date: 02-03-2010 Defendant

11

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (JD) AT NELAMANGALA IA_______/2010


OS - 64 /2010
V/S PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT JAYAMMA

VIJAYALAKSHMI & OTHERS

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 & 2 READWITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.

The Applicant/defendant in the above case most respectfully submits that, for the reasons sworn to in the accompanying affidavit, this Honble Court may be pleased to grant an Order of Temporary Injunction restraining the Plaintiffs, their agents, representatives, assignees, or any-body claiming through or under them from interfering with the peaceful mining operations in the written statement Schedule Property, pending disposal of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. SCHEDULE PROPERTY

1.

All that, piece and parcel of the Immovable

Property situated at

KalunayakanaHalli Grama, Sompura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore District, bearing Sy no: 42/4 consisting of 1 acre 0 guntas and bounded on: EAST BY : Plaintiffs property WEST BY : Government Land NORTH BY : Chickkathimmakka and defendants land, SOUTH BY : Rajanna and others land. 2. All that, piece and parcel of the Immovable Property situated at

KalunayakanaHalli Grama, Sompura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore District, bearing Sy no: 41/3 consisting of 1 acre 8 guntas and bounded on: EAST BY : Defendants property and siddagangaiahs land Chickkathimmakka and defendants land WEST BY :

NORTH BY : Rajanna and others land., SOUTH BY : Defendants property and Rangammas land

PLACE: NELAMANGALA DATED: 02-03-2010 ADVOCATE FOR APPLICANT/DEFENDANT

12

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (JD) AT NELAMANGALA IA_______/2010


OS - 64 /2010
PLAINTIFF V/S DEFENDANT JAYAMMA

VIJAYALAKSHMI & OTHERS


AFFIDAVIT

I, JAYAMMA W/O LATE KENCHAPPA, aged about 54 years, residing at Krishnapura Grama, Sompura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows : 1. I submit, that, I am the defendant in the above case. I am well conversant with the facts of the case. Hence, I am swearing to the contents of this affidavit. 2. I submit, that, plaintiffs have filed the above suit for Permanent Injunction against me. Further, I submit that, the averments made in the written statement may kindly be read as part and parcel of this affidavit in order to avoid repetition of the facts. 3. I submit that, I have not encroached upon anyones land and iam doing my mining business in my own land after obtaining valid licensce from the authorities. I have not violated any licence conditions and there is no enquiry pending regarding any encroachment of any neighbouring lands. 4. I further submit that, I have invested huge amount of money and material to do mining business and the stoppage of mining business in the written statement schedule property will impose heavy loss on the defendant by way of damages to investments. 5. I further submit that, In recent years due to stoppage of work from mining department to conduct joint survey work this defendant have lost much of her investments and loss has occurred. When the mining activity re-started from may 2009 hoping in anticipation of bulk orders the defendant have invested much of machineries. If machineries were destroyed by illegal trespass of plaintiff, defendants will be put to heavy loss. If plaintiffs are left out to interfere in suit schedule property mining activity there will be huge investment loss hence this application.

13

6. I further submit that, the plaintiffs are bent upon to dispossessing the defendants from the written statement Schedule Property and forcibly occupy the written statement Schedule Property and stop mining operations. That, the Defendant have no other alternative and efficacious remedy other than to approach this Honble Court itself for the relief of temporary Injunction restraining the plaintiff from interfering with the peacefull mining operations in the written statement Schedule Property. Hence this Application. 7. I submit that, if the plaintiffs are not restrained by means of Temporary Injunction from interfering with the peaceful mining operations in the suit Schedule Property in any manner whatsoever pending disposal of this suit, I will be put to very great hardship, irreparable loss, which cannot be equated in terms of money or monies worth. If the said order is passed in my favour no harm or injury will be caused to the other side. 8. I submit that, I have made out a prima facie case. The balance of convenience fully lies in our favour. If the interim order of Temporary Injunction is granted in our favour no harm will be caused to the other side. Hence, this interlocutory application for interim order, restraining the defendants from interfering with the mining operations in the written statement Schedule Property. WHEREFORE, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, I respectfully pray, that, this Honble Court be pleased to grant an order of Temporary Injunction restraining the plaintiffs from interfering with the peaceful mining operations in the written statement Schedule Property pending disposal of the suit in the interest of the justice and equity. I the deponent herein, do hereby declare that, this is my name, signature and contents of the affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. PLACE : NELAMANGALA DATED : 02-03-2010 Identified by me Advocate

DEPONENT

14

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (JD) AT NELAMANGALA


OS - 64 /2010
PLAINTIFF V/S DEFENDANT JAYAMMA

VIJAYALAKSHMI & OTHERS


LIST OF DOCUMENTS Anne xure A&B C&D E F G H I J K L M N O P Description

SALE DEED DATED 03-04-1993 and 29-02-1996 RTC OF SURVEY NUMBER 42/4 and 41/3 RR PAKKA BOOK FORM 5 ATLAS NAKAL OF SY.NO. 42/1,& 42/4 TIPPANI NAKAL AKAR BANDH TAX PAID RECIEPT JOINT SURVEY MAP OF MINES/FOREST/REVENUE SHOWING OTHER LICENCED QUARIES MSCQL 153/04-05 DATED 22-11-2004 FOR SUIT SCHEDULE LAND DEPARTMENT OF MINES RE PERMISSION TO CONTINUE MINING DATED 19-05-2009 OS 491/1998 COPY AGREEMENT CONSENT DEED DATED 20-08-1998 CONSENT DEED DATED 11-04-2000

PLACE : NELAMANGALA DATED : 02-03-2010

ADVOCATE FOR DEFENDANT

15

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (JD) AT NELAMANGALA


OS - 64 /2010
PLAINTIFF V/S DEFENDANT JAYAMMA

VIJAYALAKSHMI & OTHERS

INDEX

NO 1 2 2 3 4 5

PARTICULARS W/S OF DEFENDANT OBJECTIONS TO IA OF PLAINTIFF VAKALATH LIST OF DOCUMENTS WITH DOCUMENTS VERYFYING AFFIDAVIT IA OF DEFENDANT ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT

PAGES

Place: NELAMANGALA Date: 02-03-2010 ADVOCATE FOR Defendant

16

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (JD) AT NELAMANGALA


OS - 64 /2010
PLAINTIFF V/S DEFENDANT JAYAMMA

VIJAYALAKSHMI & OTHERS


VERIFYING A F F I D A V I T

I, JAYAMMA W/O LATE KENCHAPPA, aged about 54 years, residing at Krishnapura Grama, Sompura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows : 1. I submit that, I am the defendant in the above case. I am well conversant with the facts of the case. Hence, I am swearing to the contents of this affidavit.

2. I submit that, today I have filed the written statement in the above above Suit for Permanent Injunction, against me. Further, I submit, that, the averments made in the written statement may kindly be read as part and parcel of this affidavit in order to avoid repetition of facts.

3. I submit that, the averments made in para 1 to 24 of the accompanying written statement are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. 4. I submit that, the Documents Annexure A to P produced with the Written statement are copies of the Original. I, the deponent herein, do hereby declare that this is my name, signature and that the contents of this affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. PLACE : NELAMANGALA DATED : 02-03-2010 Identified by me, DEPONENT Advocate,

17

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (JD) AT NELAMANGALA


OS - 64 /2010
PLAINTIFF V/S DEFENDANT JAYAMMA

VIJAYALAKSHMI & OTHERS

MEMO
The advocate for Defendant files copy of two Judgements of Karnataka high court reported in ILR 1990 KAR 3148 & ILR 1989 KAR 962 showing that: A defendant can in appropriate cases claim interim injunction against the other party in the same suit provided the defendants claim to relief of injunction arises out of the plaintiffs cause of action or is incidental to it. It is only in cases where the defendants claim to relief arises out of the plaintiff s cause of action or is incidental to it that he can ask for a temporary injunction against the plaintiff.

Place: NELAMANGALA Date: 02-03-2010 ADVOCATE FOR Defendant

18

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (JD) AT NELAMANGALA


OS - 64 /2010
PLAINTIFF V/S DEFENDANT JAYAMMA

VIJAYALAKSHMI & OTHERS

MEMO
The advocate for Defendant files copy of following Judgements of Supreme court of India collected from Supreme Court Official website http://judis.nic.in applicable to above case to highlight the below points in support of defendant pleadings for the kind consideration of the Honble court. The matter is very urgent in the ends of Justice and the defendant is still stopped her licenced mining work in defendant written statement schedule property and plaintiff with all illegalities as explained in written statement and objections is harassing the defendant by obtaining ex-parte order. Hence this memo requesting to consider IA-1 of plaintiff and IA-2 of defendant at the earliest for its disposal

2007(6) SCC 120 -> He who comes into equity must come with clean hands. A court of equity refuses relief to a plaintiff whose conduct in regard to the subject matter of the litigation has been improper. This was formerly expressed by the maxim "he who has committed iniquity shall not have equity", and relief was refused where a transaction was based on the plaintiffs fraud or misrepresentation, or where the plaintiff sought to enforce a security improperly obtained, or where he claimed a remedy for a breach of trust which he had himself procured and whereby he had obtained money. Later it was said that the plaintiff in equity must come with perfect propriety of conduct, or with clean hands. There is another doctrine which cannot also be lost sight of. The court would not ordinarily permit a party to pursue two parallel remedies in respect of the same subject matter. [See Jai Singh v. Union of India and Others, (1977) 1 SCC 1]

19

AIR 2008 SC 646 -> it was a fit case where application for injunction filed by the plaintiff was to be dismissed in the absence of necessary parties to the suit and on that ground alone the application was dismissed. The High Court noted that it had not gone into the merits of the case and only on the technical ground as noted above, the application for temporary injunction was rejected. It is one thing to say that there does not exist any ambiguity as regards description of the suit land in the plaint with reference to the boundaries as mentioned therein, but it is another thing to say that the land in suit belongs to the respondents. It was for the plaintiffs to prove that the land in suit formed part of CTS Nos. 4823/A-17 and 4823/A-18. It was not for the defendants to do so. It was, therefore, not necessary for them to file an application for appointment of a Commissioner nor was it necessary for them to adduce any independent evidence to establish that the report of the Advocate- Commissioner was not correct. AND ALSO THE BELOW JUDGEMENTS as available in http://judis.nic.in Strong reliance is placed on the following observations of this Court in Wander Ltd. v. Antox India P. Ltd. [1990 Supp SCC 727] in regard to grant of temporary injunction "Usually, the prayer for grant of an interlocutory injunction is at a stage when the existence of the legal right asserted by the plaintiff and its alleged violation are both contested and uncertain and remain uncertain till they are established at the trial on evidence. The court, at this stage, acts on certain well settled principles of administration of this form of interlocutory remedy which is both temporary and discretionary. The object of the interlocutory injunction, it is stated : "is to protect the plaintiff against injury by violation of his rights for which he could not adequately be compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial. The need for such protection must be weighed against the corresponding need of the defendant to be protected against injury resulting from his having been prevented from exercising his own legal rights for which he could not be adequately compensated. The court must weigh one need against another and determine where the balance of convenience lies."

20

2006 (5) SCC 282 -> The discretion of the court is exercised to grant a temporary injunction only when the following requirements are made out by the plaintiff : (i) existence of a prima facie case as pleaded, necessitating protection of plaintiffs rights by issue of a temporary injunction; (ii) when the need for protection of plaintiffs rights is compared with or weighed against the need for protection of defendants rights or likely infringement of defendants rights, the balance of convenience tilting in favour of plaintiff; and (iii) clear possibility of irreparable injury being caused to plaintiff if the temporary injunction is not granted. In addition, temporary injunction being an equitable relief, the discretion to grant such relief will be exercised only when the plaintiffs conduct is free from blame and he approaches the court with clean hands. 2008(11) SCC 1 -> While considering an application for grant of injunction, the court will not only take into consideration the basic elements in relation thereto, viz., existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, it must also take into consideration the conduct of the parties. Grant of injunction is an equitable relief. A person who had kept quiet for a long time and allowed another to deal with the properties exclusively, ordinarily would not be entitled to an order of injunction. The court will not interfere only because the property is a very valuable one. We are not however, oblivious of the fact that grant or refusal of injunction has serious consequence depending upon the nature thereof. The courts dealing with such matters must make all endeavours to protect the interest of the parties. For the said purpose, application of mind on the part of the courts is imperative. Contentions raised by the parties must be determined objectively. 2008 (10) SCC 97 -> It is trite that the rule of pleadings postulate that a plaint must contain material facts. When the plaint read as a whole does not disclose material facts giving rise to a cause of action which can be entertained by a civil court, it may be rejected in terms of Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code. Similarly, a plea of bar to jurisdiction of a civil court has to be considered having regard to the contentions raised in the plaint. Place: NELAMANGALA Date: 18-03-2010 ADVOCATE FOR Defendant

21