A registered instrument can only be varied by another registered document, and a party seeking specific performance must approach the court with clean hands.

1. This appeal is focussed at the instance of the unsuccessful plaintiff as against the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2007 passed by the learned VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.9334 of 2006.

2. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. A thumb-nail sketch of the relevant facts as stood exposited from the plaint would run thus:

a] The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance seeking the following reliefs: To pass a decree and judgment against the defendant-

- for a direction against the defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff or his nominees in respect of the property, i.e., house, ground n premises bearing Door No.14/50, Ramaswamy Raja Street, Sanrorpalayam, Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106 measuring 665 sq.ft and half share in the common passage measuring 6' x 35' more particularly described in the schedule on receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) in default the sale deed may be executed by this Court on behalf of the defendant and cause its registration.

- for a consequential injunction restraining the defendant not to alienate, transfer or create any encumbrance in respect of the property i.e., house, ground n premises bearing Door No.14/50, Ramaswamy Raja Street, Sanrorpalayam, Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106 measuring 665 sq.ft and half share in the common passage measuring 6' x 35' more particularly described in the schedule and

-for costs.

(extracted as such)

on the main ground that the registered agreement to sell, Ex.A1 dated 07.12.2005 emerged between the plaintiff and the defendant, whereby the latter agreed to sell in favour of the former the immovable property described in the schedule of the plaint for a total sale consideration of Rs.7,00,000/-(Rupees seven lakhs only) under the agreement to sell; a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. The time stipulated for performance was upto the end of 30.05.2006. In the meanwhile, at the instance of the defendant, the plaintiff also paid additionally a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) on the following dates:

04.01.2006 - Rs.1,00,000/-

05.03.2006 - Rs. 70,000/-

13.05.2006 - Rs. 30,000/-

As per the terms of the agreement, the defendant was enjoined to vacate his tenants from the suit property and also discharge the mortgage debt. Inasmuch as the defendant was not taking steps in the proper direction and that he was delaying the execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff even though the plaintiff was ready to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.7,00,000/-, the pre-suit notice Ex.A2 was issued for which the defendant replied as per Ex.A4 with false and untenable pleas. Whereupon, the plaintiff filed the suit as above.

b] The defendant filed the written statement, challenging and impugning the genuineness of the plaintiff in seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell by setting out the following averments:

The plaintiff approached the court with unclean hands. Ex.B1 dated 07.12.2005, the receipt signed by both the parties would display and demonstrate that the actual sale consideration was Rs.9,00,000/-; whereas in the registered deed, Ex.A1 the total sale consideration was specified as Rs.7,00,000/-because the plaintiff, being a Bank official, was having some hesitation to disclose in the transaction the entire sale consideration of Rs.9,00,000/- lakhs. It is because of the plaintiff's mala fide approach to get the sale fructified by paying only a total sale consideration of Rs.7,00,000/- and not Rs.9,00,000/-, there erupted a rift in the relationship between the parties and ultimately, the defendant could not agree to the unjustifiable demand of the plaintiff.

Accordingly, he prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

c] The trial court framed the relevant issues.

d] During trial, the