Page 1 of 27

This Product is Licensed to M. NAGA SHYAM KIRAN (M.N.S.K.), Advocate,

Anantapuramu
A. Shanmugam VS Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya
Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam

2012 0 Supreme(SC) 330

2012 0 AIR(SC) 2010; 2012 0 AIR(SC)(Civ) 1605; 2012 0 AIR(SCW) 3017;
2012 2 ALD(SC) 41; 2012 92 AllLR 730; 2012 3 AllMR(SC) 946; 2012 4
ALT(SC) 5; 2012 3 BBCJ(SC) 221; 2012 2 CCC(SC) 145; 2012 3 CivCC 1;
2012 4 ICC 391; 2012 4 JT 383; 2012 2 KLT(SN) 130; 2012 30 LCD 932;
2012 2 LS(SC) 125; 2012 5 MLJ 618; 2013 1 RCJ 355; 2012 3 RCR(Civ) 1;
2012 116 RD 567; 2013 1 RentLR 319; 2012 4 Scale 666; 2012 6 SCC 430;
2012 3 SCC(Civ) 735; 2012 4 SCJ 576; 2012 4 SCR 74; 2012 3 SLT 435;
2012 3 Supreme 460; 2012 2 UD 163; 2012 3 WBLR 15; 2012 2 WLC 404;
2012 3 WLR(SC) 15

2012 (3) Supreme 460

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(Dalveer Bhandari & Dipak Misra, JJ.)
A. Shanmugam — Appellant
versus
Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai
Sangam Represented By Its President Etc. — Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 4012-4013 of 2012 (Arising Out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 14163-
14164 of 2012 and arising Out of CC Nos. 21115-21116 of 2011)
Decided on 27-04-2012

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : O.6 R.2, O.6 R.3, O.6 R.4, S.96

(a) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 96 – A well reasoned judgment

and a decree passed by the trial court should not be reversed by the
appellate court. (Para 19)

AIR 1962 Madras 149 – Referred

(b) Administration of justice – Delaying tactics – A small suit, where

the appellant was directed to be evicted from the premises in 1994, took 17
years before the matter was decided by the High Court – Unscrupulous
litigants filing frivolous cases to take undue advantage of the judicial
system – Practice deprecated – Needs address. (Para 21)

(c) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order VI rules 2 to 4 – Purity of

pleading is immensely important and relevant – Pleadings need to be
 Page 2 of 27

critically examined before issuing ad interim injunction and/or framing of

issues. (Para 23)

(2012) 3 SCALE 550 – Relied upon

(d) Administration of Justice – Duty of Court – Quest for truth Code

of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 30, CPC though infrequently used is of
great assistance – Pleadings should be truthful (Paras 25 to 29)

(2010) 2 SCC 114 – Relied upon

(e) Administration of justice – Framing of issues – Guidelines for

framing of issues and grant or refusal of injunction, restitution and mesne
profit stated – Importance of Order X, rule 2 in properly framing the
issues emphasized. (Paras 32 to 34)

(2011) 8 SCC 249 – Relied upon

(f) Administration of Justice – Frivolous plaints, false and irrelevant

pleas and documents, suppression of facts etc. cost the courts heavily in
terms of time and public money besides unnecessarily keeping the needy
waiting for justice – Such litigants ought to be imposed exemplary costs.
(Paras 35, 36 and 38)

(2011) 8 SCC 161 – Relied upon

Facts of the case:

1. Appellant’s father was a watchman in a Dahrmshala and lived in

the premises with his family. When the owner-society of the Dharmshala
tried to dispossess the appellant’s family he filed a suit which was decreed
by the Appellate Court. The Society filed a second appeal before the High
Court.

2. During pendency of the said second appeal the Society file a suit for
declaration of title and recovery of possession. It was dismissed by the
appellate court. The society filed second appeal before the High Court.

3. High Court by a common judgment set aside the judgments of the

appellate court.

Finding of the Court:

Appellant deserves heavy cost for such frivolous litigation.

Cases referred:
 Page 3 of 27

Alagi Alamelu Achi v. Ponniah Mudaliar, AIR 1962 Madras 149 – Referred
[Para 13]
Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria (Dead)
through L.Rs., (2012) 3 SCALE 550 – Relied upon [Para 22]
Dalip Singh v. State of U.P., (2010) 2 SCC 114 – Relied upon[Para 24]
Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi, (2011) 8 SCC 249 – Relied upon[Para
34]
Indian Council for Enviro- Legal Action v. Union of India, (2011) 8 SCC 161 –
Relied upon [Para 36]

IMPORTANT POINT
Menace of frivolous cases addressed.

JUDGMENT

Dalveer Bhandari, J. — Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. These two appeals arise out of cross suits filed before the High Court of
Judicature at Madras in S.A. No. 1973 of 2002 and S.A. No. 869 of 2009 dated
April 20, 2011. In both these appeals, A. Shanmugam is the appellant and Ariya
Kshatriya Raja Kulavamsa Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalana Sangam is the
respondent which for convenience hereinafter is referred to as the ‘Society’.

4. The property in question belonged to one, Muthu Naicker, who

dedicated the suit land for construction of a Dharamshala. In the southern part
of India, it is called as ‘choultry’. A ‘Dharamshala’ is commonly known as ‘a
place where boarding facilities are provided either free of cost or at a nominal
cost’. In the instant case, a Dharamshala was to be constructed for the benefit of
the Ariya Kshatriya community. The appellant’s father, Appadurai Pillai was
engaged as a Watchman on a monthly salary by the respondent-Society to look
after the Dharamshala and in that capacity lived in the premises with his family
including the appellant.

5. According to the appellant, in the year 1994, the respondent-Society

claiming to be the owner of the suit property tried to dispossess the appellant by
force necessitating the appellant to file a suit in O.S. No.1143 of 1994 on the
file of the Second Additional District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai praying for
issuance of permanent injunction against the respondent-Society. The said suit
was, however, dismissed. As against that, the appellant preferred an appeal in
A.S. No.94 of 2001 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Tiruvannamalai
and the said appeal was allowed and consequently, the appellant’s suit was
 Page 4 of 27

decreed. The respondent- Society preferred a Second Appeal in S.A. No.1973

of 2002 before the High Court of Madras against the said judgment of the
Additional District Judge.

6. The respondent-Society during the pendency of Second Appeal filed a

suit in O.S. No.239 of 2003 before the Additional Subordinate Judge,
Tiruvannamalai praying for declaration of title and recovery of possession of
the suit property comprised in T.S. No.1646/1 of Tiruvannamalai Town having
an extent of 70 feet east to west and 30 feet north to south bearing Old Door
No.116 and New Door No.65. The said suit was decreed as prayed for. Against
that, the appellant preferred an appeal in A.S. No.19 of 2008 on the file of the
Additional District Judge, Tiruvannamalai and the decision of the trial court
was reversed in Appeal resulting in the dismissal of the suit filed by the
respondent-Society. Aggrieved against the appeal being allowed and the suit
being dismissed, the respondent- Society preferred a Second Appeal in S.A.
No.869 of 2009 before the High Court of Madras. The learned Judge of the
Madras High Court heard both the aforesaid Second Appeals together and by a
common judgment set aside the well-considered judgments of the First
Appellate Court. Aggrieved by the said common impugned judgment, the
appellant has preferred these appeals by way of special leave.

7. It may be pertinent to mention that the appellant filed Original Suit

No.1143 of 1994 and also filed the following documents:-

(1) 20.11.1899 Certified copy of the registered agreement between

Krishnasamy Raju and others

(2) Certified copy of the bye-law of the plaintiff Sangam(respondent-

Society before us)

(3) Certified copy of Memorandum of Association of plaintiff-Sangam

(respondent-Society before us)

(4) Certified copy of Registration Certificate

(5) Certified copy of field Map Book Plan

(6) Certified copy of Town Survey Field Register

(7) Certified copy of Demand Register Extent

(8) Certified copy of Tax receipts (9)

(9) Certified copy of Indemnity Card by Munusamy

(10) Certified copy of Ration Card of Munusamy

 Page 5 of 27

(11) Certified copy of account of plaintiff Sangam (respondent-Society

before us)

(12) Certified copy of photocopy of Silesasanam

(13) 14.5.29 Copy of application by the President of plaintiff-Sangam to

Municipal Chairman

(14) 24.2.32 Copy of the application by the President of plaintiff-Sangam

to Municipal Chairman

(15) 17.8.2001 Certified copy of judgment in O.S. No. 1143/94 of District

Munsif Court, Tiruvannamalai

(16) 31.5.2002 Certified copy of judgment in A.S. No.94/2001 of

Additional District Judge, Tiruvannamalai

(17) 2000-02 House Tax Receipt

(18) 2001-02 House Tax Receipt

(19) 2002-03 House Tax Receipt

(20) Xerox copy of the Minutes Book pages 13 to 19.

8. The trial court on the basis of the pleadings has framed the following
issues:-

(1) Whether the plaintiff has the right to possession and enjoyment of the
suit property?

(2) Whether the plaintiff and his father have obtained right of enjoyment
through adverse enjoyment?

(3) As per the averments on the defendant’s side, is it true that the
plaintiff’s father in the capacity of the watchman of the suit property has been
in enjoyment of the suit property?

(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a relief of permanent injunction as

prayed for by him?

(5) Other relief?

9. In Suit No. 239 of 2003 filed by the respondent-Society against the

appellant seeking a decree for possession, the following issues were framed:-

(1) Whether the plaintiff Association is competent to file this case?

 Page 6 of 27

(2) Whether the plaint property belongs to the plaintiff’s club?

(3) Is it right that the defendant’s father Appadurai Pillai in the capacity of
a Watchman, has been maintaining the suit property?

(4) When there is a Second Appeal pending before the High Court in S.A.
No.1923 of 2002 against the judgment and decree of the Court of the District
Munsif in O.S. No. 1143 of 1994 is sustainable.

(5) Whether the defendant has acquired the right of possession in the plaint
propertydue to adverse possession?

(6) Whether this case has been procedurally evaluated for the court fee and
jurisdiction?

(7) Is the Court competent to try this Court? 8. To what other relief is the
plaintiff entitled to?

10. The trial court in Suit No.1143 of 1994 has held that the appellant was
in possession of the suit property in the capacity of a Watchman. Regarding
Issue No. 3, the trial court has observed as under:

“… … …As per the July 1949 register Ex.D5 it is established that the
plaintiff’s father has been employed as a watchman in the association. Further,
it has already been decided that the suit property belongs to the defendants
Association. Further it has also been decided that apart from that the plaintiff’s
father has only been a watchman to the suit property. Only source of the
plaintiff’s father had been a watchman, he was permitted to stay in a portion in
the suit property only because of that he had not instituted a case for the total
extent 110 x 56 feet but only for the extent of 70 x 30 feet. He admits that the
remaining portion is in the possession of the association. It is true that only for
this reason the defendants association has permitted that plaintiff and his family
members to reside in the suit property. It is evident that only in the status of a
watchman that the plaintiff’s father has been occupying a portion in the suit
survey number. This issue is decided accordingly.”

11. Regarding Issue No. 2 of adverse possession, the trial court found that
the appellant’s father was employed by the respondent-Society as a Watchman
on a petty monthly salary and in that capacity he was allowed to stay in the suit
property. The appellant did not acquire the suit property by adverse possession
and the issue was rightly decided against the appellant by the trial court.

12. Regarding issue No. 4, the trial court found that the appellant’s father
was residing in the suit premises as a Watchman and after his death the
appellant was also allowed to continue to stay in the suit property as a
 Page 7 of 27

Watchman.

13. The trial court relied on a judgment of the Madras High Court reported
in Alagi Alamelu Achi v. Ponniah Mudaliar1 AIR 1962 Madras 149. The Court
held that a person in wrongful possession is not entitled to be protected against
lawful owner by an order of injunction.

14. The trial court also came to a definite conclusion that the appellant has
concealed certain vital facts and has not approached the Court with clean hands
and consequently, he is not entitled to the grant of discretionary relief of
injunction.

15. The First Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial court and
held that the appellant was entitled to the relief of injunction because of his long
possession of the suit property. The First Appellate Court also set aside the
decree passed by the trial court in O.S. No.239 of 2003.

16. The Suit No. 239 was decreed against the appellant. Aggrieved by this,
the appellant preferred First Appeal before the District Judge which was
allowed on 3rd April, 2009. Aggrieved by this judgment, the respondent-
Society filed a Second Appeal before the High Court which was allowed. The
High Court heard both the appeals filed by the respondent-Society and the same
were allowed by a common judgment dated 20th April, 2011.

17. The High Court by a detailed reasoning, set aside the judgment of the
First Appellate Court and held that the First Appellate Court was not justified in
reversing the judgments passed by the trial court in both the abovementioned
suits, O.S. No.1143 of 1994 and O.S. No.239 of 2003. The appellant, aggrieved
by the said judgment, has preferred these two appeals. We propose to decide
both these appeals by this common judgment.

18. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length.

19. In our considered view, a well-reasoned judgment and a decree passed

by the trial court ought not to have been reversed by the First Appellate Court.
It is reiterated that the appellant’s father was engaged as a Watchman on a
monthly salary and in that capacity he was allowed to stay in the suit premises
and after his death his son (the appellant herein) continued to serve the
respondent-Society as a Watchman and was allowed to live in the premises. The
property is admittedly owned by the respondent- Society.

20. The appellant has also failed to prove the adverse possession of the suit
property. Only by obtaining the ration card and the house tax receipts, the
appellant cannot strengthen his claim of adverse possession. The High Court
was fully justified in reversing the judgment of the First Appellate Court and
 Page 8 of 27

restoring the judgment of the trial court. In our considered opinion, no

interference is called for.

21. This case demonstrates widely prevalent state of affairs where litigants
raise disputes and cause litigation and then obstruct the progress of the case
only because they stand to gain by doing so. It is a matter of common
experience that the Court’s otherwise scarce resources are spent in dealing with
non-deserving cases and unfortunately those who were waiting in the queue for
justice in genuine cases usually suffer. This case is a typical example of delayed
administration of civil justice in our Courts. A small suit, where the appellant
was directed to be evicted from the premises in 1994, took 17 years before the
matter was decided by the High Court. Unscrupulous litigants are encouraged to
file frivolous cases to take undue advantage of the judicial system.

22. The question often arises as to how we can solve this menace within
the frame work of law. A serious endeavour has been made as to how the
present system can be improved to a large extent. In the case of Maria
Margarida Sequeria Fernandes and Others v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria (Dead)
through L.Rs.2 (2012) 3 SCALE 550 (of which one of us, Bhandari, J. was the
author of the judgment), this Court had laid stress on purity of pleadings in civil
cases. We deem it appropriate to set out paras 61 to 79 of that judgment dealing
with broad guidelines provided by the Court which are equally relevant in this
case:-

“61. In civil cases, pleadings are extremely important for ascertaining the
title and possession of the property in question. 62. Possession is an incidence
of ownership and can be transferred by the owner of an immovable property to
another such as in a mortgage or lease. A licensee holds possession on behalf of
the owner.

63. Possession is important when there are no title documents and other
relevant records before the Court, but, once the documents and records of title
come before the Court, it is the title which has to be looked at first and due
weightage be given to it. Possession cannot be considered in vacuum.

64. There is a presumption that possession of a person, other than the

owner, if at all it is to be called possession, is permissive on behalf of the title-
holder. Further, possession of the past is one thing, and the right to remain or
continue in future is another thing. It is the latter which is usually more in
controversy than the former, and it is the latter which has seen much abuse and
misuse before the Courts.

65. A suit can be filed by the title holder for recovery of possession or it
can be one for ejectment of an ex-lessee or for mandatory injunction requiring a
person to remove
 Page 9 of 27

himself or it can be a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act to

recover possession.

66. A title suit for possession has two parts – first, adjudication of title, and
second, adjudication of possession. If the title dispute is removed and the title is
established in one or the other, then, in effect, it becomes a suit for ejectment
where the defendant must plead and prove why he must not be ejected.

67. In an action for recovery of possession of immovable property, or for

protecting possession thereof, upon the legal title to the property being
established, the possession or occupation of the property by a person other than
the holder of the legal title will be presumed to have been under and in
subordination to the legal title, and it will be for the person resisting a claim for
recovery of possession or claiming a right to continue in possession, to establish
that he has such a right. To put it differently, wherever pleadings and
documents establish title to a particular property and possession is in question,
it will be for the person in possession to give sufficiently detailed pleadings,
particulars and documents to support his claim in order to continue in
possession.

68. In order to do justice, it is necessary to direct the parties to give all

details of pleadings with particulars. Once the title is prima facie established, it
is for the person who is resisting the title holder’s claim to possession to plead
with sufficient particularity on the basis of his claim to remain in possession
and place before the Court all such documents as in the ordinary course of
human affairs are expected to be there. Only if the pleadings are sufficient,
would an issue be struck and the matter sent to trial, where the onus will be on
him to prove the averred facts and documents.

69. The person averring a right to continue in possession shall, as far as

possible, give a detailed particularized specific pleading along with documents
to support his claim and details of subsequent conduct which establish his
possession.

70. It would be imperative that one who claims possession must give all
such details as enumerated hereunder. They are only illustrative and not
exhaustive-

(a) who is or are the owner or owners of the property;

(b) title of the property;

(c) who is in possession of the title documents

(d) identityof the claimant or claimants to possession;

 Page 10 of 27

(e) the date of entry into possession;

(f) how he came into possession - whether he purchased the property or

inherited or got the same in gift or by any other method;

(g) in case he purchased the property, what is the consideration; if he has

taken it on rent, how much is the rent, license fee or lease amount;

(h) if taken on rent, license fee or lease - then insist on rent deed, license
deed or lease deed;

(i) who are the persons in possession/occupation or otherwise living with

him, in what capacity; as family members, friends or servants etc.;

(j) subsequent conduct, i.e., any event which might have extinguished his
entitlement to possession or caused shift therein; and

(k) basis of his claim that not to deliver possession but continue in
possession.

71. Apart from these pleadings, the Court must insist on documentary proof
in support of the pleadings. All those documents would be relevant which come
into existence after the transfer of title or possession or the encumbrance as is
claimed. While dealing with the civil suits, at the threshold, the Court must
carefully and critically examine pleadings and documents.

72. The Court will examine the pleadings for specificity as also the
supporting material for sufficiency and then pass appropriate orders.

73. Discovery and production of documents and answers to interrogatories,

together with an approach of considering what in ordinary course of human
affairs is more likely to have been the probability, will prevent many a false
claims or defences from sailing beyond the stage for issues.

74. If the pleadings do not give sufficient details, they will not raise an
issue, and the Court can reject the claim or pass a decree on admission.

75. On vague pleadings, no issue arises. Only when he so establishes, does

the question of framing an issue arise. Framing of issues is an extremely
important stage in a civil trial. Judges are expected to carefully examine the
pleadings and documents before framing of issues in a given case.

76. In pleadings, whenever a person claims right to continue in possession

of another property, it becomes necessary for him to plead with specificity
about who was the owner, on what date did he enter into possession, in what
capacity and in what manner did he conduct his relationship with the owner
 Page 11 of 27

over the years till the date of suit. He must also give details on what basis he is
claiming a right to continue in possession. Until the pleadings raise a sufficient
case, they will not constitute sufficient claim of defence.

77. XXXX XXXX XXXX

78. The Court must ensure that pleadings of a case must contain sufficient
particulars. Insistence on details reduces the ability to put forward a non-
existent or false claim or defence.

79. In dealing with a civil case, pleadings, title documents and relevant
records play a vital role and that would ordinarily decide the fate of the case.”

23. We reiterate the immense importance and relevance of purity of

pleadings. The pleadings need to be critically examined by the judicial officers
or judges both before issuing the ad interim injunction and/or framing of issues.

ENTIRE JOURNEY OF A JUDGE IS TO DISCERN THE TRUTH

24. The entire journey of a judge is to discern the truth from the pleadings,
documents and arguments of the parties. Truth is the basis of justice delivery
system. This Court in Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. and Others3 (2010) 2 SCC
114 observed that truth constitutes an integral part of the justice delivery system
which was in vogue in pre-independence era and the people used to feel proud
to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post-
independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system.

25. This Court in Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes (supra) had an

occasion to deal with the same aspect. According to us, observations in
paragraphs 31 to 52 are absolutely germane as these paragraphs deal with
relevant cases which have enormous bearing on the facts of this case, so these
paragraphs are reproduced hereunder:-

“31. In this unfortunate litigation, the Court’s serious endeavour has to be

to find out where in fact the truth lies. The truth should be the guiding star in
the entire judicial process.

32. Truth alone has to be the foundation of justice. The entire judicial
system has been created only to discern and find out the real truth. Judges at all
levels have to seriously engage themselves in the journey of discovering the
truth. That is their mandate, obligation and bounden duty.

33. Justice system will acquire credibility only when people will be
convinced that justice is based on the foundation of the truth.
 Page 12 of 27

34. In Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India 1991 Supp (1) SCC 271,
this Court observed that in such a situation a question that arises for
consideration is whether the presiding officer of a Court should simply sit as a
mere umpire at a contest between two parties and declare at the end of the
combat who has won and who has lost or is there not any legal duty of his own,
independent of the parties, to take an active role in the proceedings in finding
the truth and administering justice? It is a well accepted and settled principle
that a Court must discharge its statutory functions-whether discretionary or
obligatory-according to law in dispensing justice because it is the duty of a
Court not only to do justice but also to ensure that justice is being done.

35. What people expect is that the Court should discharge its obligation to
find out where in fact the truth lies. Right from inception of the judicial system
it has been accepted that discovery, vindication and establishment of truth are
the main purposes underlying the existence of the courts of justice.

36. In Ritesh Tewari and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
(2010) 10 SCC 677 this Court reproduced often quoted quotation which reads
as under:

“Every trial is a voyage of discovery in which truth is the quest”

37. This Court observed that the power is to be exercised with an object to
subserve the cause of justice and public interest and for getting the evidence in
aid of a just decision and to uphold the truth.

38. Lord Denning, in the case of Jones v. National Coal Board [1957] 2 QB
55 has observed that:

“In the system of trial that we evolved in this country, the Judge sits to hear
and determine the issues raised by the parties, not to conduct an investigation or
examination on behalf of the society at large, as happens, we believe, in some
foreign countries.”

39. Certainly, the above, is not true of the Indian Judicial System. A judge
in the Indian System has to be regarded as failing to exercise his jurisdiction
and thereby discharging his judicial duty, if in the guise of remaining neutral,
he opts to remain passive to the proceedings before him. He has to always keep
in mind that “every trial is a voyage of discovery in which truth is the quest”. In
order to bring on record the relevant fact, he has to play an active role; no doubt
within the bounds of the statutorily defined procedural law.

40. Lord Denning further observed in the said case of Jones (supra) that:

“‘It’s all very well to paint justice blind, but she does better without a
 Page 13 of 27

bandage round her eyes. She should be blind indeed to favour or prejudice, but
clear to see which way lies the truth…”

41. World over, modern procedural Codes are increasingly relying on full
disclosure by the parties. Managerial powers of the Judge are being deployed to
ensure that the scope of the factual controversy is minimized.

42. In civil cases, adherence to Section 30 CPC would also help in

ascertaining the truth. It seems that this provision which ought to be frequently
used is rarely pressed in service by our judicial officers and judges. Section 30
CPC reads as under:-

30. Power to order discovery and the like. – Subject to such conditions and
limitations as may be prescribed, the Court may, at any time either of its own
motion or on the application of any party, -

(a) make such orders as may be necessary or reasonable in all matters

relating to the delivery and answering of interrogatories, the admission of
documents and facts, and the discovery, inspection, production, impounding
and return of documents or other material objects producible as evidence;

(b) issue summons to persons whose attendance is required either to give

evidence or to produce documents or such other objects as aforesaid;

(c) order any fact to be proved by affidavit

43. “Satyameva Jayate” (Literally: “Truth Stands Invincible”) is a mantra

from the ancient scripture Mundaka Upanishad. Upon independence of India, it
was adopted as the national motto of India. It is inscribed in Devanagari script
at the base of the national emblem. The meaning of full mantra is as follows:

“Truth alone triumphs; not falsehood. Through truth the divine path is
spread out by which the sages whose desires have been completely fulfilled,
reach where that supreme treasure of Truth resides.”

44. Malimath Committee on Judicial Reforms heavily relied on the fact that
in discovering truth, the judges of all Courts need to play an active role. The
Committee observed thus:

“2.2………. In the adversarial system truth is supposed to emerge from the

respective versions of the facts presented by the prosecution and the defence
before a neutral judge. The judge acts like an umpire to see whether the
prosecution has been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The State
discharges the obligation to protect life, liberty and property of the citizens by
taking suitable preventive and punitive measures which also serve the object of
 Page 14 of 27

preventing private retribution so essential for maintenance of peace and law and
order in the society doubt and gives the benefit of doubt to the accused. It is the
parties that determine the scope of dispute and decide largely, autonomously
and in a selective manner on the evidence that they decide to present to the
court. The trial is oral, continuous and confrontational. The parties use cross-
examination of witnesses to undermine the opposing case and to discover
information the other side has not brought out. The judge in his anxiety to
maintain his position of neutrality never takes any initiative to discover truth.
He does not correct the aberrations in the investigation or in the matter of
production of evidence before court……..”

2.15 “The Adversarial System lacks dynamism because it has no lofty ideal
to inspire. It has not been entrusted with a positive duty to discover truth as in
the Inquisitorial System. When the investigation is perfunctory or ineffective,
Judges seldom take any initiative to remedy the situation. During the trial, the
Judges do not bother if relevant evidence is not produced and plays a passive
role as he has no duty to search for truth…..”

2.16.9. Truth being the cherished ideal and ethos of India, pursuit of truth
should be the guiding star of the Criminal Justice System. For justice to be done
truth must prevail. It is truth that must protect the innocent and it is truth that
must be the basis to punish the guilty. Truth is the very soul of justice.
Therefore truth should become the ideal to inspire the courts to pursue. This can
be achieved by statutorily mandating the courts to become active seekers of
truth. It is of seminal importance to inject vitality into our system if we have to
regain the lost confidence of the people. Concern for and duty to seek truth
should not become the limited concern of the courts. It should become the
paramount duty of everyone to assist the court in its quest for truth.

45. In Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma (1995) 1 SCC 421 to enable
the Courts to ward off unjustified interference in their working, those who
indulge in immoral acts like perjury, pre- variation and motivated falsehoods
have to be appropriately dealt with, without which it would not be possible for
any Court to administer justice in the true sense and to the satisfaction of those
who approach it in the hope that truth would ultimately prevail. People would
have faith in Courts when they would find that truth alone triumphs in Courts.

46. Truth has been foundation of other judicial systems, such as, the United
States of America, the United Kingdom and other countries.

47. In James v. Giles et al. v. State of Maryland 386 U.S. 66 (1967) 87,
S.Ct. 793, the US Supreme Court, in ruling on the conduct of prosecution in
suppressing evidence favourable to the defendants and use of perjured
testimony held that such rules existed for a purpose as a necessary component
 Page 15 of 27

of the search for truth and justice that judges, like prosecutors must undertake.
It further held that the State’s obligation under the Due Process Clause “is not
to convict, but to see that so far as possible, truth emerges.”

48. The obligation to pursue truth has been carried to extremes. Thus, in
United States v. J. Lee Havens 446 U.S. 620, 100 St.Ct.1912, it was held that
the government may use illegally obtained evidence to impeach a defendant’s
fraudulent statements during cross-examination for the purpose of seeking
justice, for the purpose of “arriving at the truth, which is a fundamental goal of
our legal system”.

49. Justice Cardozo in his widely read and appreciated book “The Nature of
the Judicial Process” discusses the role of the judges. The relevant part is
reproduced as under:-

“There has been a certain lack of candour,” “in much of the discussion of
the theme [of judges’ humanity], or rather perhaps in the refusal to discuss it, as
if judges must lose respect and confidence by the reminder that they are subject
to human limitations.” I do not doubt the grandeur of conception which lifts
them into the realm of pure reason, above and beyond the sweep of perturbing
and deflecting forces. None the less, if there is anything of reality in my
analysis of the judicial process, they do not stand aloof on these chill and
distant heights; and we shall not help the cause of truth by acting and speaking
as if they do.”

50. Aharon Barak, President of Israeli Supreme Court from 1995 to 2006
takes the position that:

“For issues in which stability is actually more important than the substance
of the solution – and there are many such cases – I will join the majority,
without restating my dissent each time. Only when my dissenting opinion
reflects an issue that is central for me – that goes to the core of my role as a
judge – will I not capitulate, and will I continue to restate my dissenting
opinion:

“Truth or stability – truth is preferable”.

“On the contrary, public confidence means ruling according to the law and
according to the judge’s conscience, whatever the attitude of the public may be.
Public confidence means giving expression to history, not to hysteria. Public
confidence is ensured by the recognition that the judge is doing justice within
the framework of the law and its provisions. Judges must act – inside and
outside the court – in a manner that preserves public confidence in them. They
must understand that judging is not merely a job but a way of life. It is a way of
life that does not include the pursuit of material wealth or publicity; it is a way
 Page 16 of 27

of life based on spiritual wealth; it is a way of life that includes an objective and
impartial search for truth.”

51. In the administration of justice, judges and lawyers play equal roles.
Like judges, lawyers also must ensure that truth triumphs in the administration
of justice.

52. Truth is the foundation of justice. It must be the endeavour of all the
judicial officers and judges to ascertain truth in every matter and no stone
should be left unturned in achieving this object. Courts must give greater
emphasis on the veracity of pleadings and documents in order to ascertain the
truth.”

26. As stated in the preceding paragraphs, the pleadings are foundation of

litigation but experience reveals that sufficient attention is not paid to the
pleadings and documents by the judicial officers before dealing with the case. It
is the bounden duty and obligation of the parties to investigate and satisfy
themselves as to the correctness and the authenticity of the matter pleaded.

27. The pleadings must set-forth sufficient factual details to the extent that
it reduces the ability to put forward a false or exaggerated claim or defence. The
pleadings must inspire confidence and credibility. If false averments, evasive
denials or false denials are introduced, then the Court must carefully look into it
while deciding a case and insist that those who approach the Court must
approach it with clean hands.

28. It is imperative that judges must have complete grip of the facts before
they start dealing with the case. That would avoid unnecessary delay in disposal
of the cases.

29. Ensuring discovery and production of documents and a proper

admission/denial is imperative for deciding civil cases in a proper perspective.
In relevant cases, the Courts should encourage interrogatories to be
administered.

FRAMING OF ISSUES

30. Framing of issues is a very important stage of a civil trial. It is

imperative for a judge to critically examine the pleadings of the parties before
framing of issues. Rule 2 of Order X CPC enables the Court, in its search for
the truth, to go to the core of the matter and narrow down, or even eliminate the
controversy. Rule 2 of Order X reads as under:-

“2. Oral examination of party, or companion of party. –

 Page 17 of 27

(1) At the first hearing of the suit, the Court -

(a) shall, with a view to elucidating matters in controversy in the suit,

examine orally such of the parties to the suit appearing in person or present in
Court, as it deems fit; and

(b) may orally examine any person, able to answer any material question
relating to the suit, by whom any party appearing in person or present in Court
or his pleader is accompanied.

(2) xxx xxx xxx

(3) xxx xxx xxx

31. It is a useful procedural device and must be regularly pressed into

service. As per Rule 2 (3) of Order X CPC, the Court may if it thinks fit, put in
the course of such examination questions suggested by either party. Rule 2 (3)
of Order X CPC reads as under:-

“2. (1) xxx xxx xxx

(2) xxx xxx xxx

(3) The Court may, if it thinks fit, put in the course of an examination under
this rule questions suggested by either party.”

32. If issues are properly framed, the controversy in the case can be clearly
focused and documents can be properly appreciated in that light. The relevant
evidence can also be carefully examined. Careful framing of issues also helps in
proper examination and cross-examination of witnesses and final arguments in
the case.

GRANT OR REFUSAL OF INJUNCTION

33. In Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes (supra), this Court examined

the importance of grant or refusal of an injunction in paras 86 to 89 which read
as under:-

“86. Grant or refusal of an injunction in a civil suit is the most important

stage in the civil trial. Due care, caution, diligence and attention must be
bestowed by the judicial officers and judges while granting or refusing
injunction. In most cases, the fate of the case is decided by grant or refusal of an
injunction. Experience has shown that once an injunction is granted, getting it
vacated would become a nightmare for the defendant. In order to grant or refuse
injunction, the judicial officer or the judge must carefully examine the entire
pleadings and documents with utmost care and seriousness.
 Page 18 of 27

87. The safe and better course is to give short notice on injunction
application and pass an appropriate order after hearing both the sides. In case of
grave urgency, if it becomes imperative to grant an ex-parte ad interim
injunction, it should be granted for a specified period, such as, for two weeks.
In those cases, the plaintiff will have no inherent interest in delaying disposal of
injunction application after obtaining an ex-parte ad interim injunction. The
Court, in order to avoid abuse of the process of law may also record in the
injunction order that if the suit is eventually dismissed, the plaintiff undertakes
to pay restitution, actual or realistic costs. While passing the order, the Court
must take into consideration the pragmatic realities and pass proper order for
mesne profits. The Court must make serious endeavour to ensure that even-
handed justice is given to both the parties.

88. Ordinarily, three main principles govern the grant or refusal of

injunction.

(a) prima facie case;

(b) balance of convenience; and

(c) irreparable injury, which guide the Court in this regard.

89. In the broad categoryof prima facie case, it is imperative for the Court
to carefully analyse the pleadings and the documents on record and only on that
basis the Court must be governed by the prima facie case. In grant and refusal
of injunction, pleadings and documents play vital role.”

RESTITUTION AND MESNE PROFITS

34. Experience reveals that a large number of cases are filed on false
claims or evasive pleas are introduced by the defendant to cause delay in the
administration of justice and this can be sufficiently taken care of if the Courts
adopt realistic approach granting restitution. This Court in the case of
Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi4 (2011) 8 SCC 249 (of which one of us,
Bhandari, J. was the author of the judgment) in paragraph 52 (C, D and G) of
the judgment dealt with the aspect of imposition of actual or realistic costs
which are equally relevant for this case reads as under:-

“C. Imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and or ordering

prosecution would go a long way in controlling the tendency of introducing
false pleadings and forged and fabricated documents by the litigants. Imposition
of heavy costs would also control unnecessary adjournments by the parties. In
appropriate cases the courts may consider ordering prosecution otherwise it
may not be possible to maintain purity and sanctity of judicial proceedings.
 Page 19 of 27

D. The Court must adopt realistic and pragmatic approach in granting

mesne profits. The Court must carefully keep in view the ground realities while
granting mesne profits.

G. The principle of restitution be fully applied in a pragmatic manner in

order to do real and substantial justice.”

35. Unless wrongdoers are denied profit or undue benefit from frivolous
litigations, it would be difficult to control frivolous and uncalled for litigations.
Experience also reveals that our Courts have been very reluctant to grant the
actual or realistic costs. We would like to explain this by giving this illustration.
When a litigant is compelled to spend Rs.1 lac on a frivolous litigation there is
hardly any justification in awarding Rs. 1,000/- as costs unless there are special
circumstances of that case. We need to decide cases while keeping pragmatic
realities in view. We have to ensure that unscrupulous litigant is not permitted
to derive any benefit by abusing the judicial process.

36. This Court in another important case in Indian Council for Enviro-
Legal Action v. Union of India and Others5 (2011) 8 SCC 161 (of which one of
us, Bhandari, J. was the author of the judgment) had an occasion to deal with
the concept of restitution. The relevant paragraphs of that judgment dealing
with relevant judgments are reproduced hereunder:-

193. This Court in Grindlays Bank Limited v. Income Tax Officer,

Calcutta (1980) 2 SCC 191 observed as under :-

“…When passing such orders the High Court draws on its inherent power
to make all such orders as are necessary for doing complete justice between the
parties. The interests of justice require that any undeserved or unfair advantage
gained by a party invoking the jurisdiction of the court, by the mere
circumstance that it has initiated a proceeding in the court, must be neutralised.
The simple fact of the institution of litigation by itself should not be permitted
to confer an advantage on the party responsible for it. …”

194. In Ram Krishna Verma and Others v. State of U.P. and Others (1992)
2 SCC 620 this Court observed as under :-

“The 50 operators including the appellants/ private operators have been

running their stage carriages by blatant abuse of the process of the court by
delaying the hearing as directed in Jeevan Nath Bahl’s case and the High Court
earlier thereto. As a fact, on the expiry of the initial period of grant after Sept.
29, 1959 they lost the right to obtain renewal or to ply their vehicles, as this
Court declared the scheme to be operative. However, by sheer abuse of the
process of law they are continuing to ply their vehicles pending hearing of the
objections. This Court in Grindlays Bank Ltd. vs Income-tax Officer - [1990] 2
 Page 20 of 27

SCC 191 held that the High Court while exercising its power under Article 226
the interest of justice requires that any undeserved or unfair advantage gained
by a party invoking the jurisdiction of the court must be neutralised. It was
further held that the institution of the litigation by it should not be permitted to
confer an unfair advantage on the party responsible for it. In the light of that
law and in view of the power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution this
Court, while exercising its jurisdiction would do complete justice and neutralise
the unfair advantage gained by the 50 operators including the appellants in
dragging the litigation to run the stage carriages on the approved route or area
or portion thereof and forfeited their right to hearing of the objections filed by
them to the draft scheme dated Feb. 26, 1959. …”

195. This Court in Kavita Trehan vs Balsara Hygiene Products (1994) 5

SCC 380 observed as under :-

“The jurisdiction to make restitution is inherent in every court and will be

exercised whenever the justice of the case demands. It will be exercised under
inherent powers where the case did not strictly fall within the ambit of Section
144. Section 144 opens with the words “Where and in so far as a decree or an
order is varied or reversed in any appeal, revision or other proceeding or is set
aside or modified in any suit instituted for the purpose, ...”. The instant case
may not strictly fall within the terms of Section 144; but the aggrieved party in
such a case can appeal to the larger and general powers of restitution inherent in
every court.”

196. This Court in Marshall Sons & Co. (I) Ltd. v. Sahi Oretrans (P) Ltd.
and Another (1999) 2 SCC 325 observed as under :-

“From the narration of the facts, though it appears to us, prima facie, that a
decree in favour of the appellant is not being executed for some reason or the
other, we do not think it proper at this stage to direct the respondent to deliver
the possession to the appellant since the suit filed by the respondent is still
pending. It is true that proceedings are dragged for a long time on one count or
the other and on occasion become highly technical accompanied by unending
prolixity, at every stage providing a legal trap to the unwary. Because of the
delay unscrupulous parties to the proceedings take undue advantage and person
who is in wrongful possession draws delight in delay in disposal of the cases by
taking undue advantage of procedural complications. It is also known fact that
after obtaining a decree for possession of immovable property, its execution
takes long time. In such a situation for protecting the interest of judgment
creditor, it is necessary to pass appropriate order so that reasonable mesne profit
which may be equivalent to the market rent is paid by a person who is holding
over the property. In appropriate cases, Court may appoint Receiver and direct
the person who is holding over the property to act as an agent of the Receiver
 Page 21 of 27

with a direction to deposit the royalty amount fixed by the Receiver or pass
such other order which may meet the interest of justice. This may prevent
further injury to the plaintiff in whose favour decree is passed and to protect the
property including further alienation.”

197. In Padmawati v. Harijan Sewak Sangh - CM (Main) No.449 of 2002

decided by the Delhi high Court on 6.11.2008, the court held as under:-

“The case at hand shows that frivolous defences and frivolous litigation is a
calculated venture involving no risks situation. You have only to engage
professionals to prolong the litigation so as to deprive the rights of a person and
enjoy the fruits of illegalities. I consider that in such cases where Court finds
that using the Courts as a tool, a litigant has perpetuated illegalities or has
perpetuated an illegal possession, the Court must impose costs on such litigants
which should be equal to the benefits derived by the litigant and harm and
deprivation suffered by the rightful person so as to check the frivolous litigation
and prevent the people from reaping a rich harvest of illegal acts through the
Court. One of the aims of every judicial system has to be to discourage unjust
enrichment using Courts as a tool. The costs imposed by the Courts must in all
cases should be the real costs equal to deprivation suffered by the rightful
person.”

198. We approve the findings of the High Court of Delhi in the

aforementioned case.

199. The Court also stated “Before parting with this case, we consider it
necessary to observe that one of the main reasons for over- flowing of court
dockets is the frivolous litigation in which the Courts are engaged by the
litigants and which is dragged as long as possible. Even if these litigants
ultimately loose the lis, they become the real victors and have the last laugh.
This class of people who perpetuate illegal acts by obtaining stays and
injunctions from the Courts must be made to pay the sufferer not only the entire
illegal gains made by them as costs to the person deprived of his right and also
must be burdened with exemplary costs. Faith of people in judiciary can only be
sustained if the persons on the right side of the law do not feel that even if they
keep fighting for justice in the Court and ultimately win, they would turn out to
be a fool since winning a case after 20 or 30 years would make wrongdoer as
real gainer, who had reaped the benefits for all those years. Thus, it becomes the
duty of the Courts to see that such wrongdoers are discouraged at every step
and even if they succeed in prolonging the litigation due to their money power,
ultimately they must suffer the costs of all these years long litigation. Despite
settled legal positions, the obvious wrong doers, use one after another tier of
judicial review mechanism as a gamble, knowing fully well that dice is always
loaded in their favour, since even if they lose, the time gained is the real gain.
 Page 22 of 27

This situation must be redeemed by the Courts”.

200. Against this judgment, Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No

29197/2008 was preferred to this Court. The Court passed the following order:

“We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. We find no
ground to interfere with the well-considered judgment passed by the High
Court. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.”

208. In Marshall sons and Company (I) Limited v. Sahi Oretrans (P)
Limited and Another (1999) 2 SCC 325 this Court in para 4 of the judgment
observed as under:

“…It is true that proceedings are dragged for a long time on one count or
the other and, on occasion, become highly technical accompanied by unending
prolixity at every stage providing a legal trap to the unwary. Because of the
delay, unscrupulous parties to the proceedings take undue advantage and a
person who is in wrongful possession draws delight in delay in disposal of the
cases by taking undue advantage of procedural complications. It is also a known
fact that after obtaining a decree for possession of immovable property, its
execution takes a long time. In such a situation, for protecting the interest of the
judgment-creditor, it is necessary to pass appropriate orders so that reasonable
mesne profit which may be equivalent to the market rent is paid by a person
who is holding over the property. In appropriate cases, the court may appoint a
Receiver and direct the person who is holding over the property to act as an
agent of the Receiver with a direction to deposit the royalty amount fixed by the
Receiver or pass such other order which may meet the interest of justice. This
may prevent further injury to the plaintiff in whose favour the decree is passed
and to protect the property including further alienation. …”

209. In Ouseph Mathai and Others v. M. Abdul Khadir (2002) 1 SCC 319
this Court reiterated the legal position that the stay granted by the Court does
not confer a right upon a party and it is granted always subject to the final result
of the matter in the Court and at the risk and costs of the party obtaining the
stay. After the dismissal, of the lis, the party concerned is relegated to the
position which existed prior to the filing of the petition in the Court which had
granted the stay. Grant of stay does not automatically amount to extension of a
statutory protection.

210. This Court in South Eastern Coalfields Limited v. State of M.P. and
others (2003) 8 SCC 648 on examining the principle of restitution in para 26 of
the judgment observed as under: “In our opinion, the principle of restitution
takes care of this submission. The word “restitution” in its etymological sense
means restoring to a party on the modification, variation or reversal of a decree
or order, what has been lost to him in execution of decree or order of the court
 Page 23 of 27

or in direct consequence of a decree or order (see Zafar Khan v. Board of

Revenue, U.P - (1984) Supp SCC 505) In law, the term “restitution” is used in
three senses: (i) return or restoration of some specific thing to its rightful owner
or status; (ii) compensation for benefits derived from a wrong done to another;
and (iii) compensation or reparation for the loss caused to another.”

211. The Court in para 28 of the aforesaid judgment very carefully

mentioned that the litigation should not turn into a fruitful industry and
observed as under:

“… … …Litigation may turn into a fruitful industry. Though litigation is

not gambling yet there is an element of chance in every litigation. Unscrupulous
litigants may feel encouraged to approach the courts, persuading the court to
pass interlocutory orders favourable to them by making out a prima facie case
when the issues are yet to be heard and determined on merits and if the concept
of restitution is excluded from application to interim orders, then the litigant
would stand to gain by swallowing the benefits yielding out of the interim order
even though the battle has been lost at the end. This cannot be countenanced.
We are, therefore, of the opinion that the successful party finally held entitled to
a relief assessable in terms of money at the end of the litigation, is entitled to be
compensated by award of interest at a suitable reasonable rate for the period for
which the interim order of the court withholding the release of money had
remained in operation.”

212. The Court in the aforesaid judgment also observed that once the
doctrine of restitution is attracted, the interest is often a normal relief given in
restitution. Such interest is not controlled by the provisions of the Interest Act
of 1839 or 1978.

213. In a relatively recent judgment of this Court in Amarjeet Singh and

Others v. Devi Ratan and Others (2010) 1 SCC 417 the Court in para 17 of the
judgment observed as under:

“No litigant can derive any benefit from mere pendency of case in a court
of law, as the interim order always merges in the final order to be passed in the
case and if the writ petition is ultimately dismissed, the interim order stands
nullified automatically. A party cannot be allowed to take any benefit of its own
wrongs by getting an interim order and thereafter blame the court. The fact that
the writ is found, ultimately, devoid of any merit, shows that a frivolous writ
petition had been filed. The maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit, which
means that the act of the court shall prejudice no one, becomes applicable in
such a case. In such a fact situation the court is under an obligation to undo the
wrong done to a party by the act of the court. Thus, any undeserved or unfair
advantage gained by a party invoking the jurisdiction of the court must be
 Page 24 of 27

neutralised, as the institution of litigation cannot be permitted to confer any

advantage on a suitor from delayed action by the act of the court. … …”

215. In consonance with the concept of restitution, it was observed that

courts should be careful and pass an order neutralizing the effect of all
consequential orders passed in pursuance of the interim orders passed by the
court. Such express directions may be necessary to check the rising trend
among the litigants to secure the relief as an interim measure and then avoid
adjudication on merits.

216. In consonance with the principle of equity, justice and good

conscience judges should ensure that the legal process is not abused by the
litigants in any manner. The court should never permit a litigant to perpetuate
illegality by abusing the legal process. It is the bounden duty of the court to
ensure that dishonesty and any attempt to abuse the legal process must be
effectively curbed and the court must ensure that there is no wrongful,
unauthorized or unjust gain for anyone by the abuse of the process of the court.
One way to curb this tendency is to impose realistic costs, which the respondent
or the defendant has in fact incurred in order to defend himself in the legal
proceedings. The courts would be fully justified even imposing punitive costs
where legal process has been abused. No one should be permitted to use the
judicial process for earning undeserved gains or unjust profits. The court must
effectively discourage fraudulent, unscrupulous and dishonest litigation.

217. The court’s constant endeavour must be to ensure that everyone gets
just and fair treatment. The court while rendering justice must adopt a
pragmatic approach and in appropriate cases realistic costs and compensation
be ordered in order to discourage dishonest litigation. The object and true
meaning of the concept of restitution cannot be achieved or accomplished
unless the courts adopt a pragmatic approach in dealing with the cases.

218. This Court in a very recent case Ramrameshwari Devi and Others v.
Nirmala Devi and Others 2011(6) Scale 677 had an occasion to deal with
similar questions of law regarding imposition of realistic costs and restitution.
One of us (Bhandari, J.) was the author of the judgment. It was observed in that
case as under:

“While imposing costs we have to take into consideration pragmatic

realities and be realistic what the defendants or the respondents had to actually
incur in contesting the litigation before different courts. We have to also
broadly take into consideration the prevalent fee structure of the lawyers and
other miscellaneous expenses which have to be incurred towards drafting and
filing of the counter affidavit, miscellaneous charges towards typing,
photocopying, court fee etc.
 Page 25 of 27

The other factor which should not be forgotten while imposing costs is for
how long the defendants or respondents were compelled to contest and defend
the litigation in various courts. The appellants in the instant case have harassed
the respondents to the hilt for four decades in a totally frivolous and dishonest
litigation in various courts. The appellants have also wasted judicial time of the
various courts for the last 40 years.”

37. False averments of facts and untenable contentions are serious

problems faced by our courts. The other problem is that litigants deliberately
create confusion by introducing irrelevant and minimally relevant facts and
documents. The court cannot reject such claims, defences and pleas at the first
look. It may take quite sometime, at times years, before the court is able to see
through, discern and reach to the truth. More often than not, they appear
attractive at first blush and only on a deeper examination the irrelevance and
hollowness of those pleadings and documents come to light.

38. Our courts are usually short of time because of huge pendency of cases
and at times the courts arrive at an erroneous conclusion because of false pleas,
claims, defences and irrelevant facts. A litigant could deviate from the facts
which are liable for all the conclusions. In the journey of discovering the truth,
at times, this Court, on later stage, but once discovered, it is the duty of the
Court to take appropriate remedial and preventive steps so that no one should
derive benefits or advantages by abusing the process of law. The court must
effectively discourage fraudulent and dishonest litigants.

39. Now, when we revert to the facts of this case it becomes quite evident
that the appellant is guilty of suppressing material facts and introducing false
pleas and irrelevant documents. The appellant has also clouded the entire case
with pleas which have nothing to do with the main controversy involved in the
case.

IRRELEVANT DOCUMENTS:

40. All documents filed by the appellant along with the plaint have no
relevance to the controversy involved in the case. We have reproduced a list of
the documents to demonstrate that these documents have been filed to mislead
the Court. The First Appellate Court has, in fact, got into the trap and was
misled by the documents and reached to an entirely erroneous finding that
resulted in undue delay of disposal of a small case for almost 17 years.

FALSE AND IRRELEVANT PLEAS:

41. The appellant is also guilty of introducing untenable pleas. The plea of
adverse possession which has no foundation or basis in the facts and
circumstances of the case was introduced to gain undue benefit. The Court must
 Page 26 of 27

be cautious in granting relief to a party guilty of deliberately introducing

irrelevant and untenable pleas responsible for creating unnecessary confusion
by introducing such documents and pleas. These factors must be taken into
consideration while granting relief and/or imposing the costs.

42. On the facts of the present case, following principles emerge:

1. It is the bounden duty of the Court to uphold the truth and do justice.

2. Every litigant is expected to state truth before the law court whether it is
pleadings, affidavits or evidence. Dishonest and unscrupulous litigants have no
place in law courts.

3. The ultimate object of the judicial proceedings is to discern the truth and
do justice. It is imperative that pleadings and all other presentations before the
court should be truthful.

4. Once the court discovers falsehood, concealment, distortion, obstruction

or confusion in pleadings and documents, the court should in addition to full
restitution impose appropriate costs. The court must ensure that there is no
incentive for wrong doer in the temple of justice. Truth is the foundation of
justice and it has to be the common endeavour of all to uphold the truth and no
one should be permitted to pollute the stream of justice.

5. It is the bounden obligation of the Court to neutralize any unjust and/or

undeserved benefit or advantage obtained by abusing the judicial process.

6. Watchman, caretaker or a servant employed to look after the property

can never acquire interest in the property irrespective of his long possession.
The watchman, caretaker or a servant is under an obligation to hand over the
possession forthwith on demand. According to the principles of justice, equity
and good conscience, Courts are not justified in protecting the possession of a
watchman, caretaker or servant who was only allowed to live into the premises
to look after the same.

7. The watchman, caretaker or agent holds the property of the principal

only on behalf the principal. He acquires no right or interest whatsoever in such
property irrespective of his long stay or possession.

8. The protection of the Court can be granted or extended to the person who
has valid subsisting rent agreement, lease agreement or licence agreement in his
favour.

43. In the instant case, we would have ordinarily imposed heavy costs and
would have ordered restitution but looking to the fact that the appellant is a
 Page 27 of 27

Watchman and may not be able to bear the financial burden, we dismiss these
appeals with very nominal costs of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid within a period of
two months and direct the appellant to vacate the premises within two months
from today and handover peaceful possession of the suit property to the
respondent-Society. In case, the appellant does not vacate the premises within
two months from today, the respondent-Society would be a liberty to take
police help and get the premises vacated.

44. Both the appeals are, accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear
their own costs.

***********