of funds with first the plaintiff and not the first plaintiff's conduct. In a suit for specific performance, the Court ought to weigh the plaintiff's conduct and the Court ought to evaluate the plaintiff's conduct against the defendant and not against the Government. At the best, the plaintiff might have to face tax liability or other criminal liability and it does not ipso facto implies that the money he possessed should necessarily be ignored. Here his position matches with the testimony of D.W.1 who admits that he had received more than what the sale deeds that he had executed in favour of defendants 12 to 14, which in turn implies that both deal with black money, and hence it is imperative the Court ought to weigh only possession of money and not whether that money is not accounted for. It is something for the income tax Department to address and not the defendant. Indeed, along with the plaint that he had lodged on 28.01.2011, he had also laid lodgment schedule, but since the trial Court had passed an order belatedly, he could deposited the balance sale consideration of Rs. 95,98,650/- only on 22.04.2012. Indeed, when the appeal came to be allowed by this Court in the first instance before it was recalled, the plaintiff had deposited Rs.34,10,000/- in March, 2022.
