Power of striking out scandalous allegation in pleadings may be invoked.

This summons is taken out by the plaintiff under Order 6, rule 16, Civil Procedure Code, and Order 14, rule 8 of the Original Side Rules praying (I), that the portions of the written-statement as shown in her affidavit should be struck out as being scandalous and defamatory; (2) that the defendant should be prohibited from making any allegation casting reflection on the character or status of the plaintiff before the Commissioner, before whom the defendant is to be examined, and (3) to direct the defendant to give evidence in Court.

The suit is to enforce specific performance of a contract of sale of the suit property, which is a building in Santhome High Road, Madras. It is alleged in the plain that the plantiff advanced a loan of Rs. 4,70,000, to the defendant in the year 1966, that the defendant subsequently expressing his inability to repay the loan offered to sell the suit property, that the sale amount was fixed at Rs. 4,00,000, that a sum of Rs. 1,20,000, was fixed as the price of the furniture, fittings, etc. that the contract was reduced to writing on 12th April, 1967, that the transaction was agreed to be completed within three months from the date of the agreement, that in November, 1967 the defendant delivered possession of the suit property to the plaintiff, that subsequently the defendant made request for extension of time and put forward untenable contentions and did not fulfil his part of the contract. With these allegations the plaintiff has prayed for a decree for specific performance. The gist of the defence is this: The plaintiff (a lady) who was a stranger to the defendant became his acquaintance in 1965 and began to move on friendly terms with him and in course of time gained a position of trust and confidence. The defendant was not really in need of money, but the plaintiff volunteered to lend. In course of time the plaintiff, representing that she was put to difficulties at the place where she was living, requested the defendant to permit her to move into the suit building. The plaintiff having gradually ingratiated herself in a position of trust and confidence and having placed the defendant in obligation to her by lending lump-sum of money broached the subject of selling the suit property to her. The plaintiff persisted in the request and prevailed upon the defendant and induced him to enter into an agreement to sell, by representing that she would always remain steadfast and loyal to the defendant and that the transfer of property to her would make no difference to the defendant’s right to continue to use the suit property and. live in it whenever he comes to Madras in the manner in which he had been using it (the defendant is a resident of Coimbatore). The sum of Rs. 4 laksh fixed was not the price of the property but was the value of the equity of redemption inasmuch as the property was subject to an equitable mortgage in favour of the SouthIndian Bank Ltd. Having regard to the relationship and intimacy, the defendant allowed the plaintiff to shift into the suit property. In course of time, the defendant found that the various representations, on the basis of which the plaintiff had induced him to consent to the agreement, were false. So subsequently the matter was discussed and on 9th July, 1967 a supplemental agreement was executed providing inter alia that certain other terms and conditions were yet to be agreed upon by both parties concerning their personal sentiments before putting through the transaction and execution of the sale deed. It was further stipulated that if such a mutual agreement was not possible, the defendant was at liberty to withdraw from the transaction with liability only to pay to the plaintiff the amount taken by him with interest. In pursuance of this supplemental provisions, no agreement could be reached and therefore the defendant is entitled to withdraw from the contract with liability only to repay to the plaintiff the money which he had received from her.

Issu