This is a suit for grant of permanent injunction.

The relief of injunction is an

equitable remedy governed by section 38 and 39 of specific relief act. The plaintiff
is seeking permanent injunction. So you must come to the court with a clean hands
and state all true facts and is case must be genuine one than only is entitled for
grant of permanent injunction or mandated injunction as otherwise his suit will be
dismissed as the said relief is an equitable relief. For this the defendants relies upon
following decision..

It is submitted that the suit property is two storied RCC building situated in Gandhi
Road which is number one commercial area in the entire Tirupati. The cost of this
site itself is about one crore.

It is submitted that the plaintiff number one has created Ex.A.2, A.3 and A.4
documents by forgery and impersonation of signatures of one T. Balagurunadham
Achari who is true owner of the plaint schedule site and father of the defendants.
On the face of the said three documents it can be said that they are fraudulent and
created documents created to knock away plaint schedule property by the first
plaintiff to secure wrongful gain to himself. The Ex.A.2document is a lease deed
alleged to have been executed by the said T. Balagurunadham Achari father of the
defendants in favour of the first plaintiff leasing out the plaint schedule site for a
period of 36 years for very very meagre rent of Rs. 500 per annum without any
enhancement of rent. Ex.A.3 is another lease deed alleged to have been executed
by the said Balagurunadham Achari father of the defendants in favour of the
plaintiff extending the above said lease for another period of 45 years after expiry
of the lease period of 36 years covered by Ex.A.2lease deed for the selfsame rent
that is Rs.500 per annum without any enhancement of rent. Ex.A.2 was executed
on the 15th three 1999. Ex.A.3 was executed on 19 March 2002. Normally after
expiry of 36 years of lease covered by Ex.A.2 lease deed the renewal or extension of
lease will be done. Peculiarly enough in this case the extension of lease of plaint
schedule property for further period of 45 years was done on 19 th of March 2002
that is within three years from the date of first lease deed covered by Ex.A.2. The
evidence of PW .1 in the cross-examination the said Balagurunadham Achari lessor
requested the plaintiff the extension of lease and executed Ex.A.3 extending lease
for further periods of 45 years. The said evidence shows that the said
Balagurunadham Achari himself requested and executed lease deed Ex.A.2 and
Ex.A.3 which is most unnatural and unbelievable. The plaintiff no.1 nowhere in the
plaint explained the necessity of extending the said lease for further periods of 45
years within three years from the date of commencement of first lease under
Ex.A.2. This is most important suspicious circumstances to conclude that the Ex.A.2
and Ex.A.3 are created documents.

It is submitted that the vital document in this case isEx.A.4 document. As per the
plaintiffs theEx.A.4 executed by the said Balagurunadham Achari the lessor of the
plaint schedule site in favour of the first plaintiff permitting him to construct two
storied RCC building in the plaint schedule site. This document is an unregistered
one came into existence on 3 March 2001 prior to execution of Ex.A.3 document.
The plaintiffs says basing on this document is has constructed two storied RCC
building in the suit site and leased out the same for business purpose. The plaintiff
has not given any explanation for not registering this document and in the crossexamination pw1 said that he has forgotten to registerEx.A.4 document. This
explanation of pw1 for not registeringEx.A.4 documents most unbelievable and
untenable. Because he has takenEx.A.2 andEx.A.3 lease deeds by registering the
same which is prior and subsequent toEx.A.4 and it cannot believed how we has
forgotten to get it registerEx.A.4. Another important fact isEx.A.3 lease deed is
subsequent toEx.A.2 andEx.A.4 document. In theEx.A.3Ex.A.2 has been mentioned.
But there is no any such mention aboutEx.A.4 document inEx.A.3 document. If
reallyEx.A.4 came into existence on 3 March 2001 the same should have been
mentioned in subsequentEx.A.3 document. The said fact flows that theEx.A.4
document brought into existence subsequent toEx.A.3 that is whyEx.A.4 was not

mentioned inEx.A.3 document and another fact which proves thatEx.A.4 document
is created document and in turnEx.A.2Ex.A.3 are also fabricated and false document
is that inEx.A.4 it has been mentioned that the building plan was approved by Tuda
and pw1 is proceeding with constructions in the suit site. In fact as perEx.A.5
building plan was not approved by the date ofEx.A.4. But as perEx.A.5 it was
approved by Tirupati municipality and not Tuda. So all these facts proof
thatEx.A.2Ex.A.3 andEx.A.4 are all false, fabricated and fraudulent documents.

It is submitted that as perEx.A.5 the plan was approved in the name of

Balagurunadham Achari on 7 to March 2001. According to Ex.A.4 the pw1 has
constructed an RCC building in the suit site since 2000 and he might have
completed the same in 2001. Ex.A.3 is dated 9 March 2000 to. But there is no any
mention about existence of the said RCC building in the suit site and it has been
shown as vacant site. InEx.A.3 in a rectification deed dated third of August 2000 is
mentioned. But the plaintiffs has not filed the said rectification deed into the court
for the reasons best known to him. If the said rectification deed is filed into the
court it would be adverse to the case of plaintiff that is why the plaintiff withheld the
said document with him. So non-filing of the said rectification deed into the court
proves that he has not come to the Honorable Court with clean hands and he has
not stated all the true facts and did not file all the vital document into the court.

It is submitted that the plaintiffs says that he has paying house tax for the suit
should property and filed Ex.A.6 property tax receipt. Ex.A.6 property tax receipt
related to the period 2009 which is subsequent to the filing of the suit and as per
Ex.A.2 And Ex.A.3 documents the said Balagurunadham Achari has to pay property
tax for the suit premises. The plaintiff is not explained why he is paying property tax
for the suit property. As per Ex.A.6 property tax for the suit premises per annum is
22,000 and as per Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.3 the lessor Balagurunadham Achari as to pay
the said property tax. They rent for the plaint schedule Princess is Rs. 500 per
annum he has to receive rent of Rs. 500 per annum and he has to pay property tax
of Rs. 22,000 per annum for the suit premises which is most unnatural and no
prudent lessor would agree for the said term. The said fact also proves that Ex.A.2,
Ex.A.3 and Ex.A.4 are. Fraudulent documents.

It is submitted that as perEx.A.6 the plaint schedule property was vacant till 31 st of
March 2008 and the property tax for the said vacant site was Rs. 300 for six months
and Rs. 600 per annum. Even as perEx.A.6 the lessor has to receive Rs. 500 per
annum and he has to pay Rs. 600 per annum to the municipality towards property
tax which is most unnatural. The said fact proves thatEx.A.2 toEx.A.4 documents are
all fabricated documents. According to pw1 building plan was approved in the name
of Balagurunadham Achari and the assessment for building for property tax must be
in the name of Balagurunadham Achari and property tax has to be collected in the
name of Balagurunadham Achari. Here as perEx.A.6 the property tax was collected
in the name of pw1. The plaintiffs filed electricity receipts which are related to the
period subsequent to the filing of the suit. The plaintiff has not explained in the
plaint and in his evidence for not filing the property tax receipts and electricity
receipts since 2000 when he started construction of the building. The plaintiff never
paid the alleged rent till today to the defendants. This also proves this is a false suit
filed by the plaintiff to knock away the suit property. Here the defendants are ladies
and one of their brother is no more and whereabouts of their another brother is not
known. Taking advantage of helpless of defendants filed this suit subsequent to the
death of the said Balagurunadham Achari to knock away the suit property to secure
wrongful gain on the basis of fraudulent and fabricated documents. The plaintiff is
not entitled for equitable remedy of injunction as he has not come to the Honorable
Court with clean hands and the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.