Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"22. Apart from the above discussion the question has to be considered also from the angle as to whether the equitable relief is to be denied to the plaintiff in this case. The principle that who seeks equity must do equity and that the parties should approach the Court with clean hands would apply equally to the plaintiff as well as the defendant. An equitable relief to be granted or to be refused should be based on sound judicial principles as mandated under Section 20 of the Specific relief Act. The genera principle that the defendant is at liberty to put-forth inconsistent pleadings will not come to the rescue of inconsistent pleadings which are totally contrary to the truth and unconscionable and aimed at denying an equitable relief to which the plaintiff would be entitled to. The attitude of the defendants, in this case as enlisted herein is bound to weigh in the judicial conscience in rendering the ultimate verdict.

47. Similarly, it has been also decided in a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1996(II) SCC 690 (Shrimoni Gurdwara Committee v. Jaswant Singh). It should also be relevant to note as follows:-

" 3. ..... It is settled law that the defendant can raise mutually inconsistent pleadings in the written statement it is for the Court to consider whether the case can be properly considered in deciding the issue. But in this case the plea in the written statement is mutually destructive. In the first written statement, they have denied the title of Isher Singh himself. When such is the situation, how can they set up a title in him and plead gift made by Isher Singh in favour of the petitioner-Committee. Under these circumstances, the High Court has rightly refused to grant the plaint. Moreover, there is no explanation given as to why they came forward with this plea at the belated stage after the parties had adduced the evidence and the matter was to the argued. Under these circumstances, we do not find any error of jurisdiction or material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction warranting interference."

48. Yet another judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1976 (4) SCC 320 (M/s.Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd and another v. M/s.Ladha Ram & Co.), has been cited for the same principle which runs as follows:-

"10. It is true that inconsistent pleas can be made in pleadings but the effect of substitution of paragraphs 25 and 26 is not making inconsistent and alternative pleadings but it is seeking to displace the plaintiff completely from the admissions made by the defendants in the written statement. If such amendments are allowed the plaintiff will be irretrievably prejudiced by being denied the opportunity of extracting the admission from the defendants."