present suit, by raising an unsustainable plea, that on the date of executing the deed, he was thinking that it was a mortgage deed and not a sale deed. 12 years after executing the deed, he has raised such an unreasonable plea, hence, such an abuse must be deprecated. After executing the sale deed before the SubRegistrar's Office, as per the earlier registered agreement for sale, it is not open to the respondent / plaintiff to raise a self contradictory plea stating that he had signed in the Sub-Registrar's Office in various papers, 12 years later in the last week of June 2012, he came to know that it was a sale deed, though he was thinking that it was only a mortgage deed, for which he received a loan of Rs.2,00,000/-, out of which, Rs.1,00,000/- and interest was paid without getting any receipt or acknowledgement, saying that the petitioners / defendants were not in the habit of issuing receipt. Such unsustainable, frivolous plea against the registered document executed by him would show that the respondent / plaintiff has not come forward with clean hands and also spoken the truth in the plaint. The self contradictory version of the respondent / plaintiff, which is against law, cannot be construed as cause of action to maintain the suit. In a case of vexatious litigation, it would be the solemn duty of this Court to invoke Article 227 of the Constitution to struck off the plaint, which contains improper and unreasonable pleadings of the respondent / plaintiff, which could not be accepted
