Suppression of material facts results in disqualification from obtaining relief; ownership claims must adhere to lawful procedures.

JUDGMENT :

M.A.Abdul Hakhim, J.

1. The Appellant is the Defendant No.1 in a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction. The Respondent No.1 filed the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the Defendants from doing anything offending his ownership and possession of the elephant by the name ‘Oottoly Raman’ in his possession and for other reliefs.

2. The Appeal is filed, challenging the Order dated 09.08.2024, passed by the Trial Court by which the Trial Court disposed of I.A. No.1/2024, filed by the Plaintiff for temporary injunction against the Defendants from taking forcible possession of the scheduled elephant, and I.A. No.6/2024 filed by Defendant No.1 to vacate the ad-interim Order of injunction. By the impugned Order, the Trial Court directed the parties to maintain status quo until final judgment or until further orders.

3. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are stated: One elephant originally named as ‘Madhu’ and now named as ‘Raman’ belonged to the Defendant No.2. The Defendant No.2 gifted the elephant to Mata Amritanandamayi Madom in the year 2001. The elephant had been in the possession of Defendant No.1, who was the Kalari Gurukkal of the Madom, till the year 2007. It was Defendant No.1 who had been looking after the elephant.

4. According to the Plaintiff, the elephant was entrusted back to the Defendant No.2 by the Madom as Ext.A1(a) Gift Deed dated 18.02.2017 when they found it difficult to control and manage the elephant and that the elephant came into his possession consequent to the execution of Ext.A1 Gift Deed dated 28.02.2017 executed by the Defendant No.2. Thus, the Plaintiff claims ownership of the elephant as per Ext.A1. It is the case of the Defendants that the elephant was entrusted with the Plaintiff only to look after the same and that the Plaintiff forged Exts.A1 and A1(a) to make a false claim of ownership over the elephant. At the instance of Defendant No.1, Crime No.1000/2023 was registered by the Police on 01.07.2023 against the Plaintiff under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. In the said Crime, the Police seized the elephant symbolically and filed a Report before the Magistrate Court. The Defendant No.1 filed C.M.P. No.2146/2023 under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking interim custody of the elephant and the same was dismissed by the JFCM, Karunagappally, as per Order dated 05.09.2023, finding, inter alia, that the subject matter of the petition is not seized and produced before the Court by the Investigating Officer to invoke Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. The said Order was challenged by the Defendant No.1 in this Court by filing Crl. M.C. No.7600/2023, and this Court, as per Order dated 20.11.2023, set aside the Order passed by the Magistrate Court in C.M.P. No.2146/2023 and directed the Magistrate to consider the matter afresh in the light of the observations contained therein.

5. C.M.P. No.2146/2023 was again considered by the Magistrate’s Court, and an Order was passed on 18.12.2023 granting interim custody of the elephant to Defendant No.1, subject to the conditions mentioned in the said Order. Immediately, the Plaintiff filed the present suit on 26.12.2023 before the Vacation Court, Thrissur, during the Christmas holidays and obtained an ex p