THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Second Appeal No. 313 of 2010 Judgment: This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 17.02.2010, passed in A.S. No.36 of 2009 by the Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Vikarabad, confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.08.2009 passed in O.S. No.71 of 2003 by the Junior Civil Judge, Pargi, Ranga Reddy District. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the lower Court for the sake of convenience. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. No.71 of 2003 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Pargi, Ranga Reddy District, for declaration of title and for consequential injunction against the defendants in respect of the suit schedule properties. The specific case of the plaintiff is that one K. Kista Reddy was the original pattadar of the suit schedule lands and that the first defendant is the daughter of said Kista Reddy and the second defendant is the husband of the first defendant and that after the death of Kista Reddy the defendants have sold away the suit lands to the plaintiff under sale deeds dated 16.03.1973 and 20.05.1977 under Exs.A1 and A2 respectively. Since then, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. When the defendants, without any right or title have been interfering with his possession, he filed the suit. Defendant No.1 filed written statement which was adopted by the second defendant contending that the defendants are the owners and possessors of the suit land and that the plaintiff by misrepresentation got mutated his name in the revenue records and then the defendants approached the Joint Collector, R.R. District, and that the Joint Collector, after making due enquiry, passed orders correcting the revenue records and that the plaintiff cannot claim the suit lands under Exs.A1 and A2 which are inadmissible documents and that he had taken contradictory pleadings before the revenue authorities and before the Civil Court. On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself was examined as PW.1 and PWs.2 to 6 were marked and Exs.A1 to A32 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, defendant No.1 was examined as DW.1, defendant No.2 was examined as DW.2 and they also examined DW.3 and got marked Exs.B1 to B5. The trial Court, having considered the entire evidence on record, came to the conclusion that no title passed to the plaintiff under Exs.A1 and A2 and that the oral evidence and Exs.A1 to A32 do not prove the ownership and possession of the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff carried the matter in appeal in A.S. No.36 of 2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, having considered the entire material, confirmed the order of the trial Court. The appellate Court also came to the conclusion that the plaintiff admitted in his cross- examination that he had taken a plea before the revenue authorities that he was the adopted son of Chandramma and accordingly got his name mutated in the revenue records, but there is no evidence to show that he is the adopted son of Chandramma, but when he came to the Civil Court he based his claim on Exs.A1 and A2 which are unregistered documents and thus he had taken contradictory versions. The only contention of Sri B. Vijaysen Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, is that since the plaintiff was seeking only permanent injunction the Courts ought to have considered whether the plaintiff was in possession of the property or not and according to him the following substantial questions of law arise for consideration. (a) Whether the unregistered documents are admissible in evidence for collateral purpose for proving the possession of the appellant? (b) Whether the long standing possession gives presumption of title to the property? (c) Whether the relief of injunction can be granted even if relief of declaration is rejected? Learned counsel for the respondents has taken me through the entire record and his only submission is that the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands. It is his submission that before the revenue authorities the plaintiff claimed that he is the adopted son of Chandramma and now he has changed his version and based his claim on Exs.A1 and A2 the unregistered sale deeds, which are inadmissible in evidence and which are hit by Section 17 of the Registration Act. The only point that arises for consideration is whether any substantial question of law arises for consideration? A party who approaches the Court must approach with clean hands. He who approaches the Court with unclean hands cannot claim the discretionary relief of injunction. It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff has approached the revenue authorities claiming that he was the adopted son of the mother of the first defendant namely Chandramma and that he was in possession of the property and accordingly his name was mutated in the revenue records. When the defendants herein approached the Joint Collector, the Joint Collector made enquiries and passed orders on 23.08.2003 in Ex.B4 setting aside the orders passed by the MRO and ordering correction of the revenue records. When the revenue records have been corrected, the plaintiff, basing on the previous uncorrected records, cannot claim any right. More over he has based his claim on Exs.A1 and A2 both are unregistered documents. Admittedly, unregistered sale deeds cannot be taken into consideration while examining the nature of rights in view of Section 17(1) of the Registration Act. Thus, no title passes to the plaintiff under Exs.A1 and A2. More over the plaintiff has not based his claim before the revenue authorities basing on Exs.A1 and A2. Admittedly, he had taken mutually destructive pleas. When all the documents relied on by the plaintiff particularly ryot passbook, title deed etc., stands corrected by the subsequent orders of the Joint Collector, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has proved his previous possession. Moreover, having set up the claim of possession basing on unregistered sale deeds now the plaintiff cannot claim adverse possession when his case on the basis of sale deeds is not accepted. Considering the documents for collateral purpose arise where in a case there is satisfactory evidence to show the long possession of a party and where a presumption of title can be drawn by virtue of the long undisturbed possession. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision reported in Rame Gowda (dead) by LRs v. M. Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by LRs[1]. In that case the appellant was found to be in settled possession of the property and what is meant by “settled possession” has been discussed in that case. The facts of that case are entirely different and not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. In the above circumstances, I do not see any question of law much less substantial question of law arises for consideration in the second appeal. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed. However, in the circumstances, no costs. ______________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 18.02.2011 Nsr [1] (2004) 1 Supreme Court Cases 769