Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

41. The learned counsel for the defendant shifted his wave of attack on the plaintiff by drawing attention of the court to the testimony of the PW1 (plaintiff in person). The learned counsel submitted that the testimony of PW1 reeks of falsehood, and the same is apparent from the conduct and non-disclosure of the source of funds. The learned counsel for the defendant submitted that PW1 denied being a money lender, whereas, the defendant has led evidence and proved that the plaintiff was a registered money lender and she deposed falsely before the court of law. The learned counsel for the defendant submitted that law and court frowns upon litigants who foul the stream of justice by not only relying to utter falsehood but also testify on the edifice of blatant lies. The learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the defendant led evidence and defendant' witnesses have deposed that the plaintiff and her family members are money lenders, who advanced money as loan on way higher interest. The learned counsel for the defendant submitted Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/B contradict the testimony of PW1. Learned counsel for the defendant submitted that Ex.PW7/A depicts various entries and particularly of renewal of the money lender's licence of the plaintiff. The learned counsel re-agitated his submissions that the suit is not maintainable in the present form, as there have been material concealment by the plaintiff and the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands.

43. Sh. Jain, learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the case urged by the plaintiff is demolished not only on law but also on facts. The learned counsel submitted that the demolition of plaintiff's case on the law point is centred on the rights of a buyer under the TPA and the remedy provided under Section 34 and 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

44. The learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the plaintiff's case implode on facts, as the same is based upon the falsehood, above all the defendant has proved that the plaintiff held a money lender's license, which the plaintiff repeatedly denied. The learned counsel submitted that the plaintiff has averred that pursuant to signing of the agreement to sell - Ex.PW1/1, the plaintiff claims to be in possession of the suit property until dispossessed by the defendant, however, the plaintiff failed to prove her possession for the alleged interregnum period.

56. To buttress his submission, learned counsel for the defendant placed reliance upon Indira Rai v. Bir Singh,4 Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.,5 S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath,6 Parmanand Kansotia v. Seetha Lath & Anr.,7 and submitted that the courts cannot come to the rescue of a plaintiff who has not approached the same with clean hands and based her claim on falsehood.

57. The learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the transaction in question is of an unaccounted money and accordingly placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in G. Pankajakshi Amma v. Mathai Mathew.8

Thus, it does not lie in the mouth of the defendant to urge that the present suit of the plaintiff is hit by Order II, Rule 2, CPC.

102. The learned counsel for the defendant placed reliance upon Indira Rai v. Bir Singh,34 Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.,35 S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath,36 Parmanand Kansotia v. Seetha Lath & Anr.,37 and submitted that the courts cannot come to the rescue of a plaintiff who has not approached the same with clean hands and based her claim on falsehood. It is observed that the learned counsel for the defendant threw the entire weight of his submissions on the ground that the plaintiff did not approach this court with clean hands and she deposed falsely about her not having a money lender's license.