IMPORTANT POINT
Menace of frivolous cases addressed.

Headnote:(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 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.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the case of A. Shanmugam vs. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam:

1. Background and Facts * The appellant's father was employed as a watchman for the respondent Society (a trust managing a Dharamshala) and lived in the premises with his family. * In 1994, the Society attempted to dispossess the family, leading to a suit filed by the appellant which was initially dismissed but later decreed by the Additional District Judge. * During the pendency of the appeal, the Society filed a second suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession, which was also decreed by the trial court. * The High Court of Madras, in a common judgment, set aside the judgments of the First Appellate Court in both suits, directing the eviction of the appellant. * The appellant failed to prove adverse possession; merely holding a ration card and paying house tax did not establish a right to possess the property owned by the Society.

2. Court's Findings on Frivolous Litigation * The Supreme Court criticized the 17-year delay in resolving a small suit, labeling it as a result of unscrupulous litigants filing frivolous cases to take undue advantage of the judicial system. * The Court held that a well-reasoned judgment and decree passed by the trial court should not be reversed by the appellate court without sufficient cause. * The appellant was found guilty of suppressing material facts, introducing false pleas (specifically regarding adverse possession), and filing irrelevant documents to mislead the court.

3. Legal Principles and Guidelines Established * Purity of Pleadings: Pleadings are the foundation of litigation and must be critically examined before framing issues or granting injunctions. Vague pleadings should not raise issues. * Duty of the Court: The judge has a bounden duty to discern the truth actively, rather than remaining a passive umpire. The court must use its powers under Section 30 CPC (discovery and interrogatories) to ascertain the truth. * Framing of Issues: Issues must be framed only after carefully examining pleadings and documents to narrow down the controversy. * Injunctions: Granting injunctions is a critical stage where courts must ensure even-handed justice, considering prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. * Restitution and Costs: Courts must impose realistic and exemplary costs on litigants who abuse the process of law. Restitution should be applied pragmatically to neutralize any unjust benefit gained by wrongdoers through delay or frivolous litigation. * Status of Watchman/Caretaker: A watchman, caretaker, or servant employed to look after property has no right to acquire an interest in that property through long possession. They hold possession only on behalf of the principal and must hand it over upon demand.

4. Disposal of Appeals * The appeals were dismissed. * The appellant was directed to vacate the premises within two months and hand over peaceful possession to the respondent Society. * The appellant was ordered to pay nominal costs of Rs. 25,000/- (considering his financial status as a watchman), despite the Court's general stance on imposing heavier costs for frivolous litigation.

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 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

(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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2012 Supreme(SC) 330

IMPORTANT POINT Menace of frivolous cases addressed.

Cases Referred (4)

IMPORTANT POINT
Menace of frivolous cases addressed.