# Bhagwan Das Chela Balram Das v. District Magistrate Ambedkarnagar & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 12 ILRA 493
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-12-20
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 1000602 of 1999
- **Bench:** Jaspreet Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bhagwan-das-chela-balram-das-v-district-magistrate-ambedkarnagar-ors-47909
- **Pages:** 19

## Headnote

A. Civil Law -U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901Section 219-Petitioner could not indicate
why
the
facts regarding the
earlier
mutation proceedings were not brought
on record and that once the private
respondent no. 4 disclosed about the
494 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
earlier litigation instituted by Balram Das
and that was dismissed by mutation court
so
also
the
appeal
with
specific
observation that there was no document
regarding the death of Mahant Narayan
Das or the manner in which the property
of the temple were being administered
including
the
manner
and
mode
of
nomination of successor and in absence of
such vital document yet no rejoinder was
filed contradicting the said facts rather
the facts were concealed even from the
mutation court who in absence of such
material passed an order in favour of
Bhagwan Das-there has been a conflict
and rival claims by various persons
claiming
rights
of
control
and
Sarbarkarship to the temple properties
and all claiming themselves to be the
disciples of Mahant Narayan Das-the
authenticity of will as set up by Bhagwan
Das is also doubtful-Concealment of fact is
a serious issue which amounts to playing
fraud with the court-Hence, this writ
petition to get the claim validated of
Dhananjay Das cannot be accepted and is
liable to fail.(Para 1 to 44)

B. The principle that a person who does
not come to the court with clean hands is
not entitled to be heard on the merits of
his grievance and, in any case, such
person is not entitled to any relief is
applicable not only to the petitions filed
under Articles 32, 226, 136 of the
Constitution but also to the cases
instituted in others courts and judicial
forums.
The
object
underlying
the
principle is that every court is not only
entitled but is duty bound to protect itself
from unscrupulous litigants who do not
have any respect for truth and who try to
pollute the stream of justice by resorting
to falsehood or by making misstatement
or by suppressing facts which have a
bearing on adjudication of the issue
arising in the case.(Para 37)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,967 of 65,277. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39967 for what follows._

12 All. Bhagwan Das Chela Balram Das Vs. District Magistrate Ambedkarnagar & Ors.
493
prudence in those circumstances. If the
allegations are apparently false, strict
approach is the call of the day so as to
maintain not only discipline in the courts
of law but also to protect judicial officers
and maintain their self esteem, confidence
and above all the majesty of institution of
justice."

(emphasis supplied)

15. Thus, after having carefully
examined entire material available before
this Court on the touch stone of law as laid
down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Gurcharan Dass Chadha (supra), K.P.
Tiwari
(supra),
Captain Amarinder
Singh (supra), Amit Agarwal (supra) and
Usmangani Adambhai Vahora (supra),
this Court is of the view that that the power
of transfer of a case must be exercised
meticulously and with precision under
compelling circumstances, where on the
basis of material on record it appears to the
court that there is strong reason for doing
so and by not transferring the case there
would be miscarriage of justice. No
universal or hard and fast rules can be
applied for deciding a transfer application
which has always to be decided on the
basis of facts of each case. It is also well
settled that the alleged apprehension has to
be well founded. The apprehension of not
getting a fair and impartial justice is
required to be reasonable based on strong
material and not hypothetical. Merely
making vague allegation that there is an
apprehension in the mind of applicant that
justice will not be done in a given case
alone would not suffice.

16. Adverting to the facts of the case
in hand, this Court finds that the allegations
levelled by the applicant as mentioned
above are wholly vague and general in
nature, which are not supported by any
reliable material on record. The applicant's
apprehension that he would not get justice
is quite imaginary. The grounds set out by
the applicant do not justify the transfer of
case as prayed by the applicant. Therefore,
this Court does not find any good ground to
interfere in this matter.

17. Accordingly, the instant transfer
application lacks merit, which deserves to
be dismissed and the same is hereby
dismissed.

18. Office is directed to send a copy
of this order to the Court concerned,
forthwith, through email/fax for necessary
information and compliance.
----------
(2022) 12 ILRA 493
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

Writ C No. 1000602 of 1999

Bhagwan Das Chela Balram Das
 ...Petitioner
Versus
District Magistrate Ambedkarnagar & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rakesh Pathak, Gyanendra Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondent:
Chief Standing Counsel, Prasiddha Narayan
Singh, Vijai Kumar Shukla, Yogesh Singh

A. Civil Law -U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901Section 219-Petitioner could not indicate
why
the
facts regarding the
earlier
mutation proceedings were not brought
on record and that once the private
respondent no. 4 disclosed about the
494 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
earlier litigation instituted by Balram Das
and that was dismissed by mutation court
so
also
the
appeal
with
specific
observation that there was no document
regarding the death of Mahant Narayan
Das or the manner in which the property
of the temple were being administered
including
the
manner
and
mode
of
nomination of successor and in absence of
such vital document yet no rejoinder was
filed contradicting the said facts rather
the facts were concealed even from the
mutation court who in absence of such
material passed an order in favour of
Bhagwan Das-there has been a conflict
and rival claims by various persons
claiming
rights
of
control
and
Sarbarkarship to the temple properties
and all claiming themselves to be the
disciples of Mahant Narayan Das-the
authenticity of will as set up by Bhagwan
Das is also doubtful-Concealment of fact is
a serious issue which amounts to playing
fraud with the court-Hence, this writ
petition to get the claim validated of
Dhananjay Das cannot be accepted and is
liable to fail.(Para 1 to 44)

B. The principle that a person who does
not come to the court with clean hands is
not entitled to be heard on the merits of
his grievance and, in any case, such
person is not entitled to any relief is
applicable not only to the petitions filed
under Articles 32, 226, 136 of the
Constitution but also to the cases
instituted in others courts and judicial
forums.
The
object
underlying
the
principle is that every court is not only
entitled but is duty bound to protect itself
from unscrupulous litigants who do not
have any respect for truth and who try to
pollute the stream of justice by resorting
to falsehood or by making misstatement
or by suppressing facts which have a
bearing on adjudication of the issue
arising in the case.(Para 37)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of cases cited:
1. Ram Chandra Singh Vs Savitri Devi & ors.
(2003) 8 SCC 319

2. A.V. Papayya Sastry & ors. Vs Govt. of A.P. &
ors. (2007) 4 SCC 221

3. K.D. Sharma Vs SAIL &ors. (2008) 12 SCC
481

4. Dalip Singh Vs St. of U.P. &ors. (2010) 2 SCC
114

5. Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav &ors. Vs Karamveer
Kakasaheb Wagh Edu. Society &ors. (2013) 11
SCC 531

(Delivered by Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh, J.)

1. By means of the instant petition
instituted by Bhagwan Das, Chela Balram
Das, a challenge was laid to the order dated
11.11.1998,
passed
by
the
District
Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar, a copy of
which is annexed as Annexure No.6 to the
writ
petition,
whereby
the
revision
preferred under Section 219 of the U.P.
Land Revenue Act, 1901 was allowed and
the order passed by the Additional
Tehsildar, Tanda dated 13.01.1992 was set
aside and the name of Mahant Narayan
Das, Chela Ram Newaz was directed to be
recorded in the revenue records.

2. It will be relevant to notice that
initial proceedings were instituted before
this Court by Bhagwan Das, Chela Balram
Das, who during the proceedings had died
and
is
now
substituted
by
Mahant
Dhananjay Das. Even the respondent no.4Shiv Shankar Singh expired and is now
represented by his son Sri Ravindra Pratap
Singh.

3. The issue in the instant petition
relates to the mutation in respect of the
properties which are dedicated to Thakur Ji
12 All. Bhagwan Das Chela Balram Das Vs. District Magistrate Ambedkarnagar & Ors.
495
Maharaj installed in a temple situate in
Village Jiyapur, District Ambedkar Nagar.

4. The dispute arose when the
erstwhile Mahant Sri Narayan Das expired
in the year 1985. The dispute regarding
mutation relating to the Plot No.122,
situated in Village Nausanda and dedicated
to the temple Thakur Ji Maharaj became
alive. The records also indicate that apart
from the properties situated in Village
Nausanda there are several other properties
which are dedicated to Thakur Ji Maharaj
and the said properties were being managed
by the Sarbarkar Mahant Narayan Das.

5. As per the customs and rituals upon
death
of
the
Mahant
whosoever
is
nominated as successor Sarbarkar takes
charge. In the instant case, it is alleged that
upon the death of Mahant Narayan Das in
the year 1985 several persons came
forward to stake claim over the properties
of the temple and each claiming to be the
Chela of Narayan Das. Amongst such stake
holders, a mutation application was moved
by one Sri Balram Das alleged disciple
(Chela) of deceased Mahant Narayan Das.
Another application for mutation was
moved by Ram Das and another by Mangal
Das. Ram Das claimed himself to be
disciple of Mahant Narayan Das, whereas
Mangal Das claimed himself to be the
disciple of Ram Newaz Das who was the
Guru of deceased Mahant Narayan Das. All
three applications for mutation were
clubbed
together
and
were
being
considered
as
Case
No.193.
Mahant
Mangal Das and Ram Das withdrew their
applications with the consequence that the
application
moved
by
Balram
Das
remained uncontested.

6. In the case of Mahant Balram Das
four witnesses were examined namely
Prahlad Verma, Babu Ram, the Halka
Lekhpal and Bhagwan Das who is the
original petitioner of this petition. It is
stated that Sri Balram Das in Case No.193
made deposition to the effect that Balram
Das had been nominated and was in control
of the properties of the temple and as such
after the death of Mahant Narayan Das, it
was a legitimate claim of Balram Das to be
considered as Sarbarkar of the temple
property.

7. The record indicates that by means of
order dated 31.03.1986 the Tehsildar did not
find favour with the contentions on the ground
that no written proof was submitted to
establish the death of Mahant Narayan Das,
moreover, the applicant of Case No.193
namely Sri Balram Das also did not appear in
the witness box nor filed any document to
indicate that he was nominated as the
successor by Mahant Narayan Das, hence, he
rejected the mutation application.

8. Being aggrieved against the said order
dated 31.03.1986 Balram Das preferred an
appeal under Section 210 of Land Revenue
Act, 1901. The appellate court noticing an
alleged agreement/compromise found that
neither the said compromise as filed inspired
confidence as there was nothing on record to
substantiate the death of Mahant Narayan Das
and it also noted that in case if Mahant
Narayan Das had nominated his successor
then there would have been some written
document or instrument in favour of Balram
Das which was also not brought on record
hence in absence of such vital documents the
appellate Court did not find favour with the
appellant and dismissed the appeal of Balram
Das by means of an order dated 28.07.1987.

9. Leaving the narrative for the
moment as noticed above at this juncture, a
new line of litigation was instituted by Sri
496 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Bhagwan Das, Chela Balram Das by
moving a fresh application for mutation in
his own name and took a divergent plea
that Mahant Narayan Das executed a will in
favour of Bhagwan Das dated 07.02.1982,
whereby
he
was
nominated
as
his
successor.

10. Bhagwan Das in support of his
contentions had examined the attesting
witness of the alleged will namely Sri
Dwarika Das and Sri Prahlad Verma. On
the basis of the said statements the
Additional Tehsildar, Tanda by means of an
order
dated
13.01.1992
allowed
the
mutation application in favour of Bhagwan
Das and ordered the deletion of the name of
Mahant Narayan Das on the basis of the
unregistered will dated 07.02.1982.

11. The private respondent no.4
namely Sri Shiv Shankar Singh moved an
application for recall of the order dated
13.01.1992 which came to be rejected.
Thereafter he preferred a revision before
the respondent no.2 and the said revision
came to be allowed by means of order
dated 11.11.1998 and the name of Bhagwan
Das was deleted and the properties were
directed to be recorded in the name of the
deceased erstwhile Mahant Narayan Das.

12. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that
Sri Bhagwan Das the original petitioner
filed the instant petition assailing the said
order dated 11.11.1998 primarily on the
ground that in a summary mutation
proceedings Bhagwan Das had been able to
establish that Mahant Narayan Das had
executed a will in his favour nominating
him as his successor and it was duly proved
in accordance with law and that he was also
in possession and control of the temple
properties as established in the light of the
statements given by the witnesses and thus
the order of Tehsildar dated 13.01.1992 was
not required to be interfered with but while
passing the order dated 11.11.1998 the
respondent no.2 not only erred in exercise
of his jurisdiction but also committed an
error to get the property recorded in the
name
of
erstwhile
deceased
Mahant
Narayan Das as the mutation could not
remain in the name of a dead person.

13. The record indicates that by
means of the order dated 12.03.1999, this
court has passed an interim order staying
the operation of the order dated 11.11.1998.

14. The private respondent no.4 has
filed counter affidavit and raised certain
questions
regarding
authenticity,
genuineness
of
the
claim
made
by
Bhagwan Das the original petitioner. It was
stated that the petitioner Bhagwan Das had
not approached the Court with clean hands
and
that
his petition
suffered
from
concealment of material facts. It was stated
that the petitioner Bhagwan Das had not
disclosed the first round of litigation which
had taken place wherein Sri Balram Das
had staked a claim on the properties of the
temple and at that point of time the original
petitioner Bhagwan Das himself was
pursuing the case on behalf of Sri Balram
Das.

15. It was also stated in the counter
affidavit that Bhagwan Das had made
statement in the mutation case instituted by
Sri Balram Das favouring Sri Balram Das.
It was also pointed out that if Mahant
Narayan Das had executed a will in favour
of Bhagwan Das dated 07.02.1982 then
there was no occasion for Bhagwan Das to
have supported the case of Balram Das in
the first round of litigation which came to
be dismissed and even the appeal preferred
by Sri Balram Das was dismissed. It is also
12 All. Bhagwan Das Chela Balram Das Vs. District Magistrate Ambedkarnagar & Ors.
497
stated that Sri Bhagwan Das had made
statement in the proceedings instituted by
Balram Das and all these aforesaid facts
including his own statement was concealed
from the authorities including this Court at
the time of institution of the present
petition.

16. The private respondent no.4 also
stated that Mahant Narayan Das knew that
there was no worthy disciple who could be
nominated as his successor and it is in this
view of the matter that several persons
namely Balram Das, Ram Das, Mangal Das
had staked their claim. Since, Mangal Das
and Ram Das withdrew from the race and
the claim of Balram Das remained
uncontested but even that came to be
dismissed so also the appeal preferred by
Balram Das. It is only thereafter that
Bhagwan Das realised that the attempt of
Balram Das had failed then Bhagwan Das
staked a claim on the basis of an alleged
will dated 07.02.1982 which prior to it has
never seen the light of the day. It was also
stated that by the aforesaid means an
attempt was made to usurp the temple
properties to the detriment of the deity and
as such the order of mutation dated
13.01.1992
which
was
procured
by
Bhagwan Das by suppression of material
facts deserves to be set aside and the order
passed by the revisional Court requires no
interference.

17. During pendency of this petition
Bhagwan Das expired so also the original
respondent no.4 and in place of Bhagwan
Das, Mahant Dhananjay Das has been duly
substituted who is represented by Mr.
Gyanendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel.
The private respondent no.4 is now
substituted by his son and is represented by
Mr. Prasiddha Narayan Singh, learned
counsel and Dr. Krishna Singh, learned
Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the
State respondent.

18. The record further indicates that
apart from the factual matrix as noticed above,
another Mahant namely Baba Laxmi Das also
claiming to be a Chela of Mahant Narayan
Das moved an application seeking his
impleadment
bearing
C.M.
Application
No.82922 of 2017. In his application for
impleadment it is stated that he is one of the
disciples of the erstwhile Mahant Narayan Das
and that in the case filed by Balram Das the
said Baba Laxmi Das had also given his
statement. It is also alleged that after the order
dated 13.01.1992 which was procured by
Mahant Bhagwan Das he sold some property
of the temple and that as soon as Baba Laxmi
Das became aware of the illegal acts he
instituted a case before Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Ambedkar Nagar bearing Case
No.549/2004 and another case was filed under
Section 229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Act before the concerned
Sub Divisional Officer. On the basis of the
aforesaid submissions an attempt was made to
indicate that Bhagwan Das was misusing his
powers and he sought his impleadment to
protect the properties of the temple.

19. Significantly the said application for
impleadment remained undisposed and while
this matter was listed on 31.10.2022,
16.11.2022, 23.11.2022 as well as on
30.11.2022 none appeared on behalf of the
Baba Laxmi Das to press the application and it
is in the aforesaid backdrop that the court
heard Mr. Gyanendra Pandey, learned counsel
for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel
and Mr. Prasiddha Narayan Singh, learned
counsel for the private respondent on
30.11.2022 when the judgment was reserved.

20. It will also be relevant to notice
that this Court by means of its order dated
498 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
31.10.2022 had required the learned
Standing Counsel to examine the matter
and seek instructions from the District
Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar regarding the
properties of Thakur Ji Maharaj including
its extent. In furtherance thereof on
14.11.2022 the written instructions have
been provided indicating several properties
in the name of Thakur Ji Maharaj is
recorded in the revenue records and are
managed by the temple Sarbarkar and that
there is pending litigation between persons
claiming Sarbarkarship before the civil
court. The said instructions have been taken
on record.

21. Mr. Gyanendra Kumar Pandey,
learned counsel who represents the present
petitioner namely Mahant Dhanajay Das
submits that it is not disputed that it is the
properties dedicated to the temple Thakur Ji
Maharaj and the deity installed therein. It is
urged that Mahant Narayan Das was the
undisputed Mahant in control of the
properties who died in the year 1985. As
per the petitioner Mahant Narayan Das had
executed a will nominating Bhagwan Das
as his successor whereas it is disputed by
respondent no.4 who submits that Mahant
Narayan Das had not executed any will.

22. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submitted that on the basis of the will
which was placed before the Tehsildar,
Tanda, it was duly proved in accordance with
law and it was also found that Sri Bhagwan
Das was in possession and based on this an
order of mutation was passed in favour of
Bhagwan Das on 13.10.1992. Further
contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the revisional court had no
jurisdiction to set aside the order of mutation
and moreover it could not make the mutation
in the name of a dead person and this order is
impugned in this writ petition. It is also urged
that once the mutation had taken place if at all
there
was
any
dispute
regarding
Sarbarkarship the same could be adjudicated
before the competent court but there was no
requirement to interfere in the order dated
13.01.1992, passed in favour of Bhagwan
Das.

23. It has also been urged by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the respondent
no.4 has got no locus standi to raise any
objection as he is neither the disciple of the
erstwhile Mahant Narayan Das nor has any
interest in the properties in question which
nevertheless vests with Thakur Ji Maharaj, a
deity, which is a juristic person and for the
said reason the respondent no.4 had no right
to assail the order dated 13.01.1992 nor the
revision at the behest of respondent no.4
could have been entertained thus the revision
wherein
the
impugned
order
dated
11.11.1998 was passed as it was not
maintainable hence the order passed therein
is also bad in the eyes of law accordingly, the
writ petition deserves to be allowed.

24. Mr. Prasiddha Narayan Singh,
learned counsel for the respondent no.4
could not dispute the fact that he did not
have any direct locus in the dispute in
question, however, he submits that his
forefathers had gifted the properties to the
temple
and
being
devotees
he
had
substantial interest to inform the court
regarding the fraud being practiced at the
behest of the petitioners as they had
concealed the material facts while filing the
present petition and in a surreptitious
manner was attempting to take control of
the properties of the temple which has also
been sold to the detriment of the temple
and the deity.

25. After the death of Bhagwan Das
the person who has sought impleadment as
12 All. Bhagwan Das Chela Balram Das Vs. District Magistrate Ambedkarnagar & Ors.
499
successor of Bhagwan Das also cannot take
control of the proceedings as prima facie it
has been established that the alleged will
which is the basis of the claim of Bhagwan
Das was fictitious so no rights could flow
from
Bhagwan
Das
to
the
person
substituted i.e. Mahant Dhananjay Das.
Accordingly, in the aforesaid circumstances
till such time the issue regarding the right
of Sarbarkarship is settled by the competent
court, the properties of temple may be
protected by passing appropriate orders.

26. Dr. Krishna Singh, learned
Standing Counsel appearing on behalf the
State also submitted that though certain
proceedings are pending before the Civil
Court but in view of the interim order
granted by this Court staying the operation
of the order dated 11.11.1998 Bhagwan Das
remained in control and he executed a
registered will deed in favour of Dhananjay
Das and on the basis of the said will name
of Dhananjay Das has been mutated vide
order dated 31.05.2019 against which Baba
Laxmi Das has moved an application for
recall and in the said proceedings the order
of mutation passed in favour of Dhanajaya
Das has been stayed. It has further been
stated that there is no clear verdict in
favour of any person having rights to
manage the properties from a regular court
rather rights are being controlled in light of
orders passed in summary proceedings.

27. Having taken note of the aforesaid
factual matrix, this court finds that it is not
disputed that the properties belong to a
juristic person namely Thakur Ji Maharaj.
The property of the temple needs to be
preserved and protected for the benefit of
deity.

28. Mr. Gyanendra Kumar Pandey,
learned counsel for the petitioner could not
explain
as
to
why
and
in
what
circumstances Bhagwan Das was pursuing
the case on behalf of Balram Das for
mutation if Bhagwan Das had a will in his
favour dated 07.02.1982 and why the said
will was not placed and mad the basis of
right of Bhagwan Das till the proceedings
instituted by Balram Das came to be
dismissed by the appellate court in 1987
and for the first time in the year 1992 on
the basis of an alleged will dated
07.02.1982 did Bhagwan Das get his name
mutated.

29. Mr. Pandey, learned counsel for
the petitioner could not indicate why the
facts
regarding
the
earlier
mutation
proceedings were not brought on record
and that once the private respondent no.4 in
his counter affidavit had disclosed about
the earlier litigation instituted by Balram
Das and that it was also dismissed by
mutation court so also the appeal with
specific observation that there was no
document regarding the death of Mahant
Narayan Das or the manner in which the
property
of
the
temple
were
being
administered including the manner and
mode of nomination of successor and in
absence of such vital document yet no
rejoinder was filed contradicting the said
facts rather the facts were concealed even
from the mutation court who in absence of
such material passed an order in favour of
Bhagwan Das on 31.01.1992.

30. Mr. Pandey, learned counsel for
the petitioner also did not indicate the
pending status as well as the out come of
the proceedings which were instituted by
the rival contestant Baba Laxmi Das and it
was known only through the learned
Standing Counsel who informed that the
matter
is
still
pending
before
the
appropriate Court and the matter was fixed
500 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
on 09.12.2022, but the learned Standing
Counsel could not give the exact details or
the stage at which the said suit was
pending. The fact of proceedings pending
before the Sub Divisional Officer and Civil
Court was mentioned in the application for
impleadment of Baba Laxmi Das even then
the petitioner did not bring the facts on
record nor denied the same.

31. Admittedly, the respondent no.4
has no right in the property and what this
court finds is that by means of instant
mutation proceedings control is being
sought in respect of the temple properties
vested with the deity which is nothing but
an attempt to claim the management and
control by resorting to suppression of
material
facts
and
misrepresentations.
There is nothing on record to establish the
scheme of administration regarding the
temple and its properties. There is no
material brought on record by either the
petitioner or the respondents including the
State respondents to indicate the rules, bye
laws or the customs and rituals by which
the
temple
properties
are
being
administered and how the Sarbarkarship is
passed on from one Sarbarkar to another. It
is also quite true that the last undisputed
Mahant namely Sri Narayan Das expired in
the year 1985 but since thereafter there has
been a conflict and rival claims by various
persons claiming the rights of control and
Sarbarkarship to the temple properties and
all claiming themselves to be the disciples
of Mahant Narayan Das. This court further
finds that there are a large number of
properties of Thakur Ji Maharaj and the
issue regarding successor of Mahant
Narayan Das, the authenticity of the will as
set up by Bhagwan Das dated 07.02.1982 is
also under cloud and is doubtful for the
reasons as already noticed above, that in
the first round of litigation when Balram
Das was staking a claim, the original
petitioner of this petition namely Bhagwan
Das was pursuing the case favouring
Balram Das and only after the dismissal of
the case of Balram Das, did Bhagwan Das
stake his claim and that too by concealing
the aforesaid facts in his case and also
before this court in the writ petition.

32. Concealment of fact is a serious
issue which amounts to playing fraud with
the court. In this regard it will be relevant
to notice certain decisions of the Apex
Court
wherein
this
issue
has
been
considered, some of which are as follows:

33. In Ram Chandra Singh Vs.
Savitri Devi and others; (2003) 8 SCC 319
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as
under:

"15. Commission of fraud on
court and suppression of material facts are
the core issues involved in these matters.
Fraud as is well-known vitiates every
solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwells
together.

16. Fraud is a conduct either by
letter or words, which induces the other
person, or authority to take a definite
determinative stand as a response to the
conduct of former either by word or letter.

17. It is also well settled that
misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud.
Indeed, innocent misrepresentations may
also give reason to claim relief against
fraud.

18.
A
fraudulent
misrepresentation is called deceit and
consists in leading a man into damage by
willfully or recklessly causing him to
believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud
in law if a party makes representations
which he knows to be false, and injury
ensues therefrom although the motive from
12 All. Bhagwan Das Chela Balram Das Vs. District Magistrate Ambedkarnagar & Ors.
501
which the representations proceeded may
not have been bad.

19. In Derry v. Peek, [1889] 14
A.C. 337, it was held:

In an 'action of deceit the plaintiff
must prove actual fraud. Fraud is proved
when it is shown that a false representation
has been made knowingly, or without belief
in its truth, or recklessly, without caring
whether it be true or false.

A false statement, made through
carelessness
and
without
reasonable
ground for believing it to be true, may be
evidence of fraud but does not necessarily
amount to fraud. Such a statement, if made
in the honest belief that it is true, is not
fraudulent and does not render the person
make it liable to an action of deceit."

20. In Kerr on Fraud and
Mistake, at page 23, it is stated:

"The true and only sound principle
to be derived from the cases represented by
Slim v. Croucher is this: that a representation
is fraudulent not only when the person
making it knows it to be false, but also when,
as Jessel, M.R., pointed out, he ought to have
known, or must be taken to have known, that
it was false. This is a sound and intelligible
principle, and is, moreover, not inconsistent
with Derry v. Peek. A false statement which a
person ought to have known was false, and
which he must therefore be taken to have
known was false, cannot be said to be
honestly believed in. "A consideration of the
grounds of belief", said Lord Herschell, "is
no doubt an important aid in ascertaining
whether the belief was really entertained. A
man's mere assertion that he believed the
statement he made to be true is not accepted
as conclusive proof that he did so."

21. In Bigelow on Fraudulent
Conveyances at page 1, it is stated:

"If on the facts the average man
would have intended wrong, that is
enough."

It was further opined:

"This conception of fraud (and
since it is not the writer's, he may speak of
it without diffidence), steadily kept in view,
will render the administration of the law
less difficult, or rather will make its
administration more effective. Further, not
to enlarge upon the last matter, it will do
away with much of the prevalent confusion
in regard to 'moral' fraud, a confusion
which, in addition to other things, often
causes lawyers to take refuge behind such
convenient and indeed useful but often
obscure language as 'fraud upon the law'.
What is fraud upon the law? Fraud can be
committed only against a being capable of
rights, and 'fraud upon the law' darkens
counsel. What is really aimed at in most
cases by this obscure contrast between
moral fraud and fraud upon the law, is a
contrast between fraud in the individual's
intention to commit the wrong and fraud as
seen in the obvious tendency of the act in
question."

22. Recently this Court by an
order dated 3rd September, 2003 in Ram
Preeti Yadav vs. U.P. Board of High School
& Intermediate Education & Ors. reported
in JT 2003 (Supp. 1 ) SC 25 held:

"Fraud is a conduct either by
letter or words, which induces the other
person, or authority to take a definite
determinative stand as a response to the
conduct of former either by words or letter.
Although negligence is not fraud but it can
be evidence on fraud. (See Derry vs. Peek
[1889] 14 A.C. 337 ) In Lazarus Estate vs.
Berly [1971] 2 W.L.R. 1149 the Court of
Appeal stated the law thus:

"I cannot accede to this argument
for a moment "no Court in this land will
allow a person to keep an advantage which
he has obtained by fraud. No judgment of a
Court, no order of a Minister, can be
allowed to stand if it has been obtained by
502 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
fraud. Fraud unravels everything". The
Court is careful not to find fraud unless it is
distinctly pleaded and proved; but once it is
proved it vitiates judgments, contracts and
all transactions whatsoever."

In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu vs.
Jagannath 1994 (1) SCC 1 this Court
stated that fraud avoids all judicial acts,
ecclesiastical or temporal."

23. An act of fraud on court is
always viewed seriously. A collusion or
conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights
of the others in relation to a property would
render the transaction void ab initio. Fraud
and deception are synonymous.

24. In Arlidge & Parry on Fraud,
it is stated at page 21:

"Indeed,
the
word
sometime
appears to be virtually synonymous wit
"deception", as in the offence (now
repealed) of obtaining credit by fraud. It is
true that in this context "fraud" included
certain kind of conduct which did not
amount to false pretences, since the
definition referred to an obtaining of credit
"under false pretences, or by means of any
other fraud". In Jones, for example, a man
who ordered a meal without pointing out
that he had no money was held to be guilty
of obtaining credit by fraud but not of
obtaining the meal by false pretences: his
conduct, though fraudulent, did not amount
to a false pretence. Similarly it has been
suggested that a charge of conspiracy to
defraud may be used where a "false front"
has been presented to the public (e.g. a
business appears to be reputable and
creditworthy when in fact it is neither) but
there has been nothing so concrete as a
false pretence. However, the concept of
deception (as defined in the Theft Act 1968
) is broader than that of a false pretence in
that
(inter
alia)
it
includes
a
misrepresentation as to the defendant's
intentions; both Jones and the "false front"
could now be treated as cases of obtaining
property by deception."

25. Although in a given case a
deception may not amount to fraud, fraud
is anathema to all equitable principles and
any affair tainted with fraud cannot be
perpetuated or saved by the application f
any equitable doctrine including resjudicata.

26. In Smt. Shrisht Dhawan vss.
M/s. Shaw Brothers 1992 AIR(SC) 1555 ],
it has been held that:

"Fraud and collusion vitiate even
the most solemn proceedings in any
civilized system of jurisprudence. It is a
concept descriptive of human conduct."

27. In S.P. Chengalvaraya vs.
Jagannath [ 1994 (1) SCC 1 ] this Court in
no uncertain terms observed:

"...The principles of "finality of
litigation" cannot be passed to the extent of
such an absurdity that it becomes an engine
of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants.
The Courts of law are meant for imparting
justice between the parties. One who comes
to the Court, must come with clean hands.
We are constrained to say that more often
than not process of the Court is being
abused. Property-grabbers, tax-evaders,
bank-loan dodgers and other unscrupulous
persons from all walks of life find the court-
process a convenient lever to retain the
illegal gains indefinitely. We have no
hesitation to say that a person whose case
is based on falsehood, has no right to
approach the Court. He can be summarily
thrown out at any stage of the litigation....
A fraud is an act of deliberate deception
with the design of security something by
taking unfair advantage of another. It is a
deception in order to gain by another's
loss. It is a cheating intended to get an
advantage... A litigant, who approaches the
Court, is bound to produce all the
documents executed by him, which are
12 All. Bhagwan Das Chela Balram Das Vs. District Magistrate Ambedkarnagar & Ors.
503
relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a
vital document in order to gain advantage
on the other side then he would be guilty of
playing fraud on the Court as well as on
the opposite party."

28. In Indian Bank vs. Satyam
Fibers (India) Pvt. Ltd. [ 1996 (5) SCC 550
], this Court after referring to Lazarus
Estates (supra) and other cases observed
that 'since fraud affects the solemnity,
regularity
and
orderliness
of
the
proceedings of the Court it also amounts to
an abuse of the process of the Court, that
the Courts have inherent power to set aside
an order obtained by practising fraud upon
the Court, and that where the Court is
misled by a party or the Court itself
commits a mistake which prejudices a
party, the Court has the inherent power to
recall its order".

It was further held:

"The judiciary in India also
possesses inherent power, specially under
Section 151 CPC, to recall its judgment or
order if it is obtained by fraud on Court. In
the case of fraud on a party to the suit or
proceedings, the Court may direct the
affected party to file a separate suit for
setting aside the decree obtained by fraud.
Inherent powers are powers, which are
resident in all Courts, especially of
superior jurisdiction. These powers spring
not from legislation but from the nature and
the constitution of the tribunals or Courts
themselves so as to enable them to maintain
their dignity, secure obedience to its
process and rules, protect its officers from
indignity and wrong and to punish
unseemly
behaviour.
This
power
is
necessary for the orderly administration of
the Court's business."

29. In Chittaranjan Das vs.
Durgapore Project Limited & Ors. 99 CWN
897, it has been held:

"Suppression
of
a
material
document which affects the condition of
service of the petitioner, would amount to
fraud in such matters. Even the principles
of natural justice are not required to be
complied within such a situation.

It is now well known that a fraud
vitiates all solemn acts. Thus, even if the
date of birth of the petitioner had been
recorded in the service returns on the basis
of the certificate produced by the petitioner,
the same is not sacrosanct nor the
respondent company would be bound
thereby.""

34. In A.V. Papayya Sastry and
others Vs. Government of A.P. and others;
(2007) 4 SCC 221 the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held as under:

"21. Now, it is well settled
principle of law that if any judgment or
order is obtained by fraud, it cannot be
said to be a judgment or order in law.
Before three centuries, Chief
Justice
Edward Coke proclaimed; "Fraud avoids
all
judicial
acts,
ecclesiastical
or
temporal".

22. It is thus settled proposition of
law that a judgment, decree or order
obtained by playing fraud on the Court,
Tribunal or Authority is a nullity and non
est in the eye of law. Such a judgment,
decree or order by the first Court or by the
final Court has to be treated as nullity by
every Court, superior or inferior. It can be
challenged in any Court, at any time, in
appeal, revision, writ or even in collateral
proceedings.

23. In the leading case of Lazarus
Estates Ltd. v. Beasley, (1956) 1 All ER 341
: (1956) 1 QB 702 : (1956) 2 WLR 502,
Lord Denning observed:
504 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"No judgment of a court, no order
of a Minister, can be allowed to stand, if it
has been obtained by fraud."

24. In Duchess of Kingstone,
Smith's Leading Cases, 13th Edn., p.644,
explaining the nature of fraud, de Grey,
C.J. stated that though a judgment would
be res judicata and not impeachable from
within, it might be impeachable from
without. In other words, though it is not
permissible to show that the court was
'mistaken', it might be shown that it was
'misled'. There is an essential distinction
between mistake and trickery. The clear
implication of the distinction is that an
action to set aside a judgment cannot be
brought on the ground that it has been
decided wrongly, namely, that on the
merits, the decision was one which should
not have been rendered, but it can be set
aside, if the court was imposed upon or
tricked into giving the judgment.

25. It has been said; Fraud and
justice never dwell together (fraus et jus
nunquam cohabitant); or fraud and deceit
ought to benefit none (fraus et dolus nemini
patrocinari debent).

26. Fraud may be defined as an
act of deliberate deception with the design
of securing some unfair or undeserved
benefit by taking undue advantage of
another. In fraud one gains at the loss of
another. Even most solemn proceedings
stand vitiated if they are actuated by fraud.
Fraud is thus an extrinsic collateral act
which vitiates all judicial acts, whether in
rem or in personam. The principle of
'finality of litigation' cannot be stretched to
the extent of an absurdity that it can be
utilized as an engine of oppression by
dishonest and fraudulent litigants.

27. In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu
(dead) by LRs. V. Jagannath (dead) by LRs.
& Ors. (1994) 1 SCC 1 : JT 1994 (6) SC
331, this Court had an occasion to consider
the doctrine of fraud and the effect thereof
on the judgment obtained by a party. In that
case, one A by a registered deed,
relinquished all his rights in the suit
property in favour of C who sold the
property to B. Without disclosing that fact,
A filed a suit for possession against B and
obtained preliminary decree. During the
pendency of an application for final decree,
B came to know about the fact of release
deed by A in favour of C.