Party seeking injunction must approach the court with clean hands.

(Prayer: This second appeal against the judgement and decree passed in A.S.No.13 of 2002 on the file of the first Additional sub Court, Tirunelveli dated 21.10.2003 confirming the judgement and Decree passed in O.S.No.327 of 1998 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli dated 16.04.2001.)

The second appeal was admitted on 13.12.2004 on the following substantial questions of Law:

1.Whether the findings of the courts below are vitiated by its failure to consider the absence of any evidence on the side of the respondents 1 and 2 regarding possession except the recitals under Exs.A-3 and A-4 which came to be registered pursuant to the judgement and decree passed in O.S.No.358 and 360 of 1991 without notice to the appellant?

2.Whether the courts below are right in not considering the question on the indisputable fact that the suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code especially when the cause of action in the present suit is the same as that of in the previous suits in O.S.No.358 and 360 of 1991?

2. When the application for interim order was moved, both the counsel submitted that they would argue the main second appeal itself and therefore the second appeal was heard.

3. The suit was filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein. The case of the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs is as follows: Respondents 1 and 2 are brothers. According to them, the appellant entered into agreement for sale on 21.4.1989, marked as Exs.A-1 and A-2, agreeing to sell the suit property to them and pursuant to the said agreement, Exs.A-3 and A-4 sale deeds were registered on 3.12.1989 and mutation of records were also effected and thereupon they were in enjoyment of the suit property. It is necessary for this case to extract the actual recitals in the plaint.

"thjpfs; cld;gpwe;j rnfhjuh;fs;. thjpfs; jgrpy; brhj;ij 1tJ gpujpthjpaplkpUe;J 21.4.1989 njjpa up$p];lh; fpiua xg;ge;jq;fs; nghl;L mij mDrupj;J 3.12.89y; up$p];lh; fpiuaq;fs; bgw;W g[s;spkD khw;wp jPh;it rfpjk; gP];g[y;yhf mDgtpj;JtUfpUh;fs;."

According to respondents 1 and 2, the title was handed over by the appellant to them and since, the appellant, who was the first defendant in the suit, interfered with their enjoyment on 25.4.98, they gave a police complaint, but the appellant absconded and again interfered with their enjoyment with the assistance of rowdy elements on 14.6.98 and therefore, the suit was filed on 15.6.98.

4.The appellant denied all the averments made in the plaint. The appellant specifically stated that the words "Mz;lDgtpj;Jf; bfhs;tPh;fshft[k;" has been deliberately introduced to show as if they were in enjoyment and possession of the suit property. The appellant denied execution of the sale deed and also prayed dismissal of the suit on the ground of "misjoinder of cause of action". More importantly, the appellant referred to the earlier suits between the parties. According to the appellant, the two documents Exs.A3 and A4 were never executed by him, and they were concocted by the respondents 1 and 2 and thereafter petitions were filed before the Joint Registrar, Tirunelveli for compulsory registration and that the applications were dismissed by the Joint Registrar and thereafter the first respondent filed O.S.No.360 of 1991, and the second respondent filed O.S.No.258 of 1991 under Section 77 of the Registration Act. This was decreed by the learned Sub Judge Tirunelveli. Against that the appellant preferred A.S.Nos.132 and 133 of 1996. The said appeals had been dismissed for default on 12.2.98. The appellant has preferred an application to restore the appeals and in these circumstances, the respondents 1 and 2 cannot maintain the suit. The trial court came to the conclusion that the respondents 1 and 2 have proved their case and this was confirmed in appeal by the first appellate Court.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the suit being one for injunction, it is for the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs to prove their possessio