# A. SHANMUGAM v. ARIYA KSHATRIYA RAJAKULA VAMSATHU MADALAYA NANDHAVANA PARIPALANAI SANGAM REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT ETC

- **Citation:** [2012] 4 S.C.R. 74
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2012-04-27
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 4012-13 of 2012
- **Bench:** Dalveer Bhandari, Dipak Misara
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/a-shanmugam-v-ariya-kshatriya-rajakula-vamsathu-madalaya-nandhavana-paripalanai-28422
- **Pages:** 44

## Headnote

C
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
G 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
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
appropriate costs - It is obligation of the court to neutralize
unjust and undeserved advantage obtained by abusing the
judicial process -
In the instant case ordinarily heavy cost
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
HELD: 1.1 A well-reasoned judgment and a decree
passed by the trial court ought not to have been reversed
E
F
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 i

## Text

_Characters 0–39,795 of 76,983. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39795 for what follows._

[2012] 4 S.C.R. 74
A
A. SHANMUGAM
v.
ARIYA KSHATRIYA RAJAKULA VAMSATHU MADALAYA
NANDHAVANA PARIPALANAI SANGAM REPRESENTED
BY ITS PRESIDENT ETC.
B
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4012-13 of 2012)
APRIL 27, 2012
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND DIPAK MISARA, JJ.]
C
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
G 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
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
appropriate costs - It is obligation of the court to neutralize
unjust and undeserved advantage obtained by abusing the
judicial process -
In the instant case ordinarily heavy cost
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
HELD: 1.1 A well-reasoned judgment and a decree
passed by the trial court ought not to have been reversed
E
F
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] [1010]
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
8
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
C 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]
D [102-G-H]
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]
G
H
Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi (2011) 8 SCC 249:
2011 (8) SCR 992 ; Indian Council for Enviro-Lega/ Action
v. Union of India and Ors. (2011) 8 SCC 161: 2011 (9 ) SCR
146 - relied on.
2.9 False averments of facts and untenable
A. SHANMUGAM v. ARIYA K.R.V.M.N.P. SANGAM REP. BY
79
ITS PRESIDENT ETC.
contentions are serious problems faced by the courts. A
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 B
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. [Para 37] [114-G-H; 115-A]
C
2.10 The 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 D
conclusions. In the journey of discovering the truth, at
times, Supreme 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 E
law. The court must effectively discourage fraudulent and
dishonest litigants. [Para 38] [115-8-C]
2.11 It is the bounden duty of the Court to uphold the
truth and do justice. Every litigant is expected to state
F
truth before the law court whether it is pleadings,
affidavits or evidence. Dishonest and unscrupulous
litigants have no place in law courts. The ultimate object
of the judicial proceedings is to discern the truth and do
justice. It is imperative that pleadings and all other G
presentations before the court should be truthful. [Para
42] [116-C-E]
2.12 Once the court discovers falsehood,
concealment, distortion, obstruction or confusion in
pleadings and documents, the court should in addition H
80
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 4 S.C.R.
A 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
B stream of justice. It is the bounden obligation of the court
to neutralize any unjust and/or undeserved benefit or
advantage obtained by abusing the judicial process.
[Para 42) [116-E-G]
2.13 In the facts of the case, it is quite evident that
C 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. [Para 39) [115-D-E]
D
2.14 All documents filed by the appellant along with
the plaint have no relevance to the controversy involved
in the case. The documents have been filed to mislead
the court. The first appellate court has, in fact, got into
E 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.
[Para 40) [115-F-G]
F
2.15 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 be cautious in granting relief to a party guilty
of deliberately introducing irrelevant and untenable pleas
G 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. [Para 41) [115-H; 116-A-B]
H
3. In the instant case, the court would have ordinarily
A. SHANMUGAM v. ARIYA K.R.V.M.N.P. SANGAM REP. BY 81
ITS PRESIDENT ETC.
imposed heavy costs and would have ordered restitution
A
but looking to the fact that the appellant is a watchman
and may not be able to bear the financial burden, the
appeals are dismissed with very nominal costs of Rs.
25,000/- to be paid within a period of two months and the
appellant is directed to vacate the premises within two
B
months from the date of the judgment and handover
peaceful possession of the suit property to the
respondent-society. [Para 43) [117-E-F]
Alagi Alamelu Achi v. Ponniah Mudaliar AIR 1962 C
Madras 149 - referred to.
Case Law Reference:
AIR 1962 Madras 149 Referred to
Para 13
(2012) 3 SCALE 550
Relied on
Para 22
2009 (16) SCR 111
Relied on
Para 24
2011 (8) SCR 992
Relied on
Para 34
2011 (9) SCR 146
Relied on
Para 36
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
4012-13 Of 2012.
D
E
From the Judgment & Order dated 20.04.2011 of the High
Court of Judicature at Madras in S.A. Nos. 1973 of 2002 and
F
869 of 2009.
V. Prabhakar, R. Chandrachud, Jyoti Prashar, S. Natesan,
Arul for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DALVEER BHANDARI, J. 1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
G
3. These two appeals arise out of cross suits filed before
H
82
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 4 S.C.R.
A 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 Ar1ya Kshatriya
Raja Kulavamsa Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalana Sangam
is the respondent which for convenience hereinafter is referred
B 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
C 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
D 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
E 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 respondentSociety. The said suit was, however, dismissed. As against
F 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
G 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
H title and recovery of possession of the suit property comprised
A. SHANMUGAM v. ARIYA K.R.V.M.N.P. SANGAM REP. BY
83
ITS PRESIDENT ETC. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
in T.S. No.1646/1 of Tiruvannamalai Town having an extent of
A
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
B
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 c
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 :-
D
1.
20.11.1899
Certified copy of the registered
E
agreement between Krishnasamy
2.
3.
4.
5.
Raju and others
Certified copy of the bye-law of the
plaintiff Sangam(respondent-Society
before us)
Certified copy of Memorandum of
Association of plaintiff-Sangam
(respondent-Society before us)
Certified copy of Registration
Certificate
Certified copy of field Map Book
Plan
F
G
H
84
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 4 S.C.R.
A
6.
Certified copy of Town Survey Field
Register
7.
Certified copy of Demand Register
Extent
B
8.
Certified copy of Tax receipts (9)
9.
Certified copy of Indemnity Card by
Munusamy\
c
10.
Certified copy of Ration Card of
Munusamy
11.
Certified copy of account of plaintiff
Sangam (respondent-Society before
us)
D
12.
Certified copy of photocopy of
Silesasanam
13.
14.5.29
Copy of application by the President
E
of plaintiff-Sangam to Municipal
Chairman
14.
24.2.32
Copy of the application by the
President of plaintiff-Sangam to
Municipal Chairman
F
15.
17.8.2001
Certified copy of judgment in O.S.
No. 1143/94 of District Munsif Court,
liruvannamalai
16.
31.5.2002
Certified copy of judgment in A.S.
G
No.94/2001 of Additional District
Judge, Tiruvannamalai
17.
2000-02
House Tax Receipt
H
18.
2001-02
House Tax Receipt
A. SHANMUGAM v. ARIYA K.R.V.M.N.P. SANGAM REP. BY 85
ITS PRESIDENT ETC. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
19.
2002-03
House Tax Receipt
A
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.
Whetherthe 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 plaintiffs 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?
B
c
D
9. In Suit No. 239 of 2003 filed by the respondent-Society
E
against the appellant seeking a decree for possession, the
following issues were framed:-
1.
Whether the plaintiff Association is competent to file
this case?
2.
Whether the plaint property belongs to the plaintiffs
club?
3.
Is it right that the defendant's father Appadurai Pillai
F
in the capacity of a Watchman, has been
G
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
H
86
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 4 S.C.R.
A
Munsif in O.S. No. 1143 of 1994 is sustainable.
5.
Whether the defendant has acquired the right of
possession in the plaint property due to adverse
possession?
B
6.
Whether this case has been procedurally evaluated
for the court fee and jurisdiction?
c
D
E
F
G
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.05 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 plaintiffs
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
H court found that the appellant's father was employed by the
A. SHANMUGAM v. ARIYA K.R.V.M.N.P. SANGAM REP. BY 87
ITS PRESIDENT ETC. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
respondent-Society as a Watchman on a petty monthly salary
A
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 Watchman.
B
13. The trial court relied on a judgment of the Madras High
C
Court reported in Alagi Alame/u Achi v. Ponniah Mudaliar 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.
D
15. The First Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the
E
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
F
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
G
High Court heard both the appeals filed by the respondentSociety and the same were allowed by a common judgment
dated 20th April, 2011.
17. The High Court by a detailed reasoning, set aside the
H
88
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 4 S.C.R.
A
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
B
appeals. We propose to decide both these appeals by this
common judgment.
18. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant
at length.
C
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
D 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.
E
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
F
and 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
G 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
H justice in our Courts. A small suit, where the appellant was
A. SHANMUGAM v. ARIYA K.R.V.M.N.P. SANGAM REP. BY 89
ITS PRESIDENT ETC. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
directed to be evicted from the premises in 1994, took 17 year$
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. (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
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
8
c
D
E
F
G
H
90
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 4 S.C.R.
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
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
A. SHANMUGAM v. ARIYA K.R.V.M.N.P. SANGAM REP. BY
91
ITS PRESIDENT ETC. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
before the Court all such documents as in the ordinary
A
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.
B
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)
identity of the claimant or claimants to possession;
(e)
the date of entry into possessiolJ;
(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;
c
D
E
F
(h)
if taken on rent, license fee or lease - then insist
G
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.;
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
92
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 4 S.C.R.
(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
H
necessary for him to plead with specificity about who was
A. SHANMUGAM v. ARIYA K.R.V.M.N.P. SANGAM REP. BY 93
ITS PRESIDENT ETC. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
the owner, on what date did he enter into possession, in
A
what capacity and in what manner did he conduct his
relationship with the owner 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
B
defence.
77. xxxx
xx xx
xx xx
78. The Court must ensure that pleadings of a case must
contain sufficient particulars. Insistence on details reduces
C
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 o
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
E
24. The entire journey of a judge is to discern the truth from
F
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 Others (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
G
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.
H
94
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 4 S.C.R.
A 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:-
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
" 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.
34. In Mohan/al 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 obligatoryaccording 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 th.e truth lies. Right
from inception of the judicial system it has been accepted
A. SHANMUGAM v. ARIYA K.R.V.M.N.P. SANGAM REP. BY
95
ITS PRESIDENT ETC. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
that discovery, vindication and establishment of truth are
A
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"
B
37. This Court observed that the power is to be exercised c
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
D
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
E
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
F
is a voyage of discovery in which truth is the quest". In
G
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,
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
96
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 4 S.C.R.
but she does better without a 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
H
as the national motto of India. It is inscribed in Devanagari
A. SHANMUGAM v. ARIYA K.R.V.M.N.P. SANGAM REP. BY
97
ITS PRESIDENT ETC. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
script at the base of the national emblem. The meaning of
A
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
B
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:
C
2.2 .......... ln 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.