A. SHANMUGAM v. ARIYA KSHATRIYA RAJAKULA VAMSATHU MADALAYA

Judgment

4 S.C.R. 74 A B C A. SHANMUGAM v. ARIYA KSHATRIYA RAJAKULA VAMSATHU MADALAYA NANDHAVANA PARIPALANAI SANGAM REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT ETC. (Civil Appeal Nos. 4012-13 of 2012) APRIL 27, 2012 [DALVEER BHANDARI AND DIPAK MISARA, JJ.] Suit ·- Suit for permanent injunction - Claiming possession of suit property - By the watchman who was engaged for taking care of the suit property - Claimant taking plea of adverse possession - Cross suit also by the owner of the suit property- Original court deciding in favour of the owner D - First appellate court deciding in favour of the claimant - Second appeal decided against the claimant - On appeal, held: Watchman, caretaker or a servant employed to look after the property can never acquire interest in the property irrespective of his long possession - Such person holds the E property of the principal only on behalf of the principal - Courts are not justified in protecting possession of such person. Administration of Justice - Abuse of process of law - Watchman of suit property - Claiming possession of the F property by filing suit - Held: The claimant is guilty of misuse of process of law - It is example of delayed administration of civil justice in the courts as the matter took 17 years to be finally decided by High Court - The claimant is guilty of suppressing material facts and introducing false pleas and irrelevant ·documents to mislead the court - Every litigant is expected to state truth in its pleadings, affidavits and evidence - Once the court discovers falsehood, concealment, distortion, obstruction or confession in pleadings and G H 74 A. SHANMUGAM v. ARIYA K.R.V.M.N.P. SANGAM REP. BY 75 ITS PRESIDENT ETC. documents, it should in addition to full restitution impose A It is obligation of the court to neutralize appropriate costs - unjust and undeserved advantage obtained by abusing the In the instant case ordinarily heavy cost judicial process - would have been imposed, but in view of the fact that the claimant is a watchman, nominal cost of Rs. 25, 000 imposed B - Costs. Respondent-society was the owner of the suit property which was a Dharmshala. Father of the appellant was engaged as a watchman of the said Dharmshala on C a monthly salary by the respondent-society and he lived there with his family (including the appellant) in that capacity. Appellant filed a suit in the year 1994 for permanent injunction against the respondent-society, alleging that D the society tried to dispossess him. The suit was dismissed. But the appeal against the same was allowe.d decreeing the suit. The cross suit of the respondent-society was decreed. The decree was reversed by first appellate court. In second appeals, in both the suits, High Court set aside the judgments of first appellate courts. Hence the present appeals, by the appellant. Dismissing the appeals, the Court E F HELD: 1.1 A well-reasoned judgment and a decree passed by the trial court ought not to have been reversed by the first appellate court. The appellant's father was engaged as a Watchman on a monthly salary and in that G 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. [Para 19) [88-C-D] H 76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 4 S.C.R. A

1.2 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 B of the first appellate court and restoring the judgment of the trial court. [Para 20] [88-E-F]

1.3 Watchman, caretaker or a servant employed to look after the property can never acquire interest in the property irrespective of his long possession. The C 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 D only allowed to live into the premises to look after the same. 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. The E 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. [Para 42] [116-H; 117-A-D] F

2.1 The present 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 G 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 the courts. A small suit, where the appellant was H directed to be evicted from the premises in 1994, took 17 A. SHANMUGAM v. ARIYA K.R.V.M.N.P. SANGAM REP. BY 77 ITS PRESIDENT ETC. years, before the matter was decided by the High Court. A Unscrupulous litigants are encouraged to file frivolous cass to take undue advantage of the judicial system. [Para 21] [88-G-H; 89-A]

2.2 The purity of pleadings is immensely important 8 and relevant. 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. The entire journey of a judge is to discern the truth from the pleadings, documents and arguments of the parties. C Truth is the basis of justice delivery system. [Paras 23 and 24] [93-E-F] Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes and Ors. v. ··Erasmo Jack deSequeria (Dead) through L. Rs. (2012) 3 SCALE 550; Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. (2010) 2 D sec 114: 2009 (16) SCR 111 - relied on.

2.3 The pleadings are foundation of litigation but sufficient attention is not paid to the pleadings and documents by the judicial officers before dealing with the E 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. [Para 26] [101-B-C]

2.4 The pleadings must set-forth sufficient factual F 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 G deciding a case and insist that those who approach the Court must approach it with clean hands. [Para 27] [101- 0]

2.5 It is imperative that judges must have complete H 78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 4 S.C.R. A grip of the facts before they start dealing with the case. That would avoid unnecessary delay in disposal of the cases. [Para 28] [101-E]

2.6 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. [Para 29] [101-F]

2.7 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. [Para 32] [102-G-H] 8 C D

2.8 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 E be sufficiently taken care of, if the courts adopt realistic approach granting restitution. Unless wrongdoers are denied profit or undue benefit from frivolous litigations, it would be difficult to control frivolous and uncalled for litigations. The courts have been very reluctant to grant the actual or realistic costs. The cases need to be decided F while keeping pragmatic relaties in view. It is to be ensured that unscrupulous litigant is not permitted to derive any benefit by abusing the judicial process. [Paras 34 and 35] [104-D-E; 105-C-D]