Petitioners seeking direction to accept land tax filed this writ petition suppressing material facts regarding prior litigation and mutation cancellation held to constitute abuse of court process.
Writ petition dismissed; petitioners ordered to pay exemplary costs of Rs. 10,000 to the Kerala Legal Services Authority.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP(C) NO. 9636 OF 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 21ST ASHADHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 9636 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
1 K. NAMBIKUMAR AGED 69 YEARS S/O. LATE KRISHNA SWAMY REDDIAR, RESIDING AT KUMAR VILAS, M.O.WARD, ALAPPUZHA-688012, REP. BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER HAMID YAFI, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL KHADAR YAFI, RESIDING AT POOPARAMBU, CIVIL STATION WARD, ALAPPUZHA-688012.
2 K.SANKAR, AGED 68 YEARS S/O. LATE KRISHNA SWAMY REDDIAR, RESIDING AT KUMAR VILAS, M.O.WARD, ALAPPUZHA, REP. BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER HAMID YAFI, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL KHADAR YAFI, RESIDING AT POOPARAMBU, CIVIL STATION WARD, ALAPPUZHA-688012.
3 S.SETHU, AGED 61 YEARS D/O. LATE KRISHNA SWAMY REDDIAR, RESIDING AT KUMAR VILAS, M.O.WARD, ALAPPUZHA, REP. BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER HAMID YAFI, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL KHADAR YAFI, RESIDING AT POOPARAMBU, CIVIL STATION WARD, ALAPPUZHA-688012.
BY ADV C.K.SREEJITH
RESPONDENTS:
1 VILLAGE OFFICER PARAVOOR VILLAGE, AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688561.
2 TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688561.
WP(C) NO. 9636 OF 2021 2
3 THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, DEPARTMENT OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS, 1ST FLOOR, COMPANY LAW BHAVAN, BMC ROAD, THRIKKAKARA, KOCHI-682021.
4 ADDL.R4: A.R.MOHAMED KABEER, AGED 73 YEARS S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN KUNJU, RESIDING AT CERA-68, THAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NORTH OF VELLAKKINAR JUNCTION, NEW BAZAR, ALAPPUZHA WEST VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA - 688001 ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 22.06.2021 IN IA 1/2021 IN WPC NO.9636/2021.
BY ADVS. P.B.KRISHNAN P.B.SUBRAMANYAN SABU GEORGE
SMT AC VIDHYA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 9636 OF 2021
3
JUDGMENT
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with a very innocuous looking prayer. The solitary relief claimed by them is for a direction to the 1st respondent to take up Ext.P9 application seeking to effect transfer of Registry so as to enable them to remit Land Tax.
Petitioners state that they are the legal heirs of late Sri.Krishna Swamy Reddiar, who was the Managing Director of a company by name ‘M/s.Kerala Rubber Plantations Industries Ltd’. It is the case of the petitioners that property admeasuring 77.30 Ares in Re Sy.No.377/1 in Block No.11 of Paravoor village was purchased by the aforesaid Krishna Swamy Reddiar, in the name of the company on the cover of Ext.P1 document. They contend that the property was not taken into the Asset Register of the company and was kept aside by Krishnaswamy Reddiar. After the death of Krishnaswamy Reddiar in the year 1986, the property was in the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners herein. Petitioners contend that in the said circumstances they approached the revenue authorities and sought for effecting mutation of the property in their name. They also approached the Registrar of Companies, Ernakulam, and filed an application seeking verification of documents. Their
WP(C) NO. 9636 OF 2021
4
grievance is that though repeated representations were filed, no action was taken. The petitioners contend that in the said circumstances, they approached this Court and filed a writ petition and by judgment dated 23.02.2021, the same was disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to approach the concerned authority. By virtue of directions in the judgment the petitioners approached the Registrar of Companies and certain information was furnished. The petitioners state that thereafter in the year 2006 the property was divided among the sharers and a settlement deed was executed as Document No.5314 of 2006, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P8. After execution of settlement deed as aforesaid, the petitioners filed an application seeking mutation before the 1st respondent. The grievance of the petitioners is that no action has been taken on Ext.P9 till date. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that they have approached this Court seeking the following relief:
“(i) issue writ of mandamus or such other writ or direction directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the Ext.P9 application by accepting land tax in the name of petitioners within such time that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant”
WP(C) NO. 9636 OF 2021
5
29.11.2003, the property was sold to the shareholders. The legal heirs of Sri.Krishna Swamy Reddiar managed to get mutation of the property effected in their name in the year 2001. But later, the same was cancelled in 2003. It was thereafter that the petitioners had executed a partition deed, and on the strength of the said deed made an application to effect mutation. The said application was rejected by the village officer and the same was confirmed by the RDO in appeal. Though a revision petition was filed before the District Collector, the said order was confirmed in revision as well. It is further stated that while the Revision Petition was pending consideration of the District Collector, the petitioners herein instituted O.S.No.379/12 before the Principal Munsiff’s Court, Alappuzha seeking a declaration that Document No.4873/2003 of the Alappuzha S.R.O was null and void and not binding on the plaint schedule property. The additional 4th respondent was impleaded as the 1st defendant in the said suit. By judgment dated 9.12.2014, the suit was dismissed holding that the petitioners herein have no right, title or interest over Ext.P1 property. Against the judgment and decree the petitioners herein had preferred A.S.No.113/2017 which was taken up by the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Alappuzha and by judgment dated 29.08.2018, the same was dismissed. Challenging the said judgment and decree, R.S.A.No.1172/2018 was filed before this Court and by judgment dated 12.12.2019 the 2nd appeal preferred against the concurrent findings were also dismissed. The additional respondent states that entire facts as stated above have been suppressed by
WP(C) NO. 9636 OF 2021
6
the petitioners in the writ petition.
WP(C) NO. 9636 OF 2021
7
who has won and who has lost but it has a legal duty of its own, independent of parties, to take active role in the proceedings and reach at the truth, which is the foundation of administration of justice. Therefore, the truth should become the ideal to inspire the courts to pursue. This can be achieved by statutorily mandating the courts to become active seekers of truth. To enable the courts to ward off unjustified interference in their working, those who indulge in immoral acts like perjury, prevarication and motivated falsehood, must be appropriately dealt with. The parties must state forthwith sufficient factual details to the extent that it reduces the ability to put forward false and exaggerated claims and a litigant must approach the court with clean hands. It is the bounden duty of the court to ensure that dishonesty and any attempt to surpass the legal process must be effectively curbed and the court must ensure that there is no wrongful, unauthorised or unjust gain to anyone as a result of abuse of process of court. One way to curb this tendency is to impose realistic or punitive costs.
WP(C) NO. 9636 OF 2021
8
achieve an ulterior purpose amounts to an abuse of process of court. A litigant is bound to make “full and true disclosure of facts”. (Refer: Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi [(1969) 1 SCC 110] , A. Shanmugam v. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam [(2012) 6 SCC 430], Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma [(1995) 1 SCC 421] , Abhyudya Sanstha v. Union of India [(2011) 6 SCC 145] , State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan [(2011) 7 SCC 639], Kalyaneshwariv. Union of India [(2011) 3 SCC 287])
WP(C) NO. 9636 OF 2021
9
for abusing the process of court. (K.D. Sharma v. SAIL[(2008) 12 SCC 481] .)
WP(C) NO. 9636 OF 2021
10
the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible. The petitioners are also bound to be mulcted with exemplary costs for preferring this Writ Petition by suppressing the actual facts.
The Registry shall communicate a copy of this order to the Member Secretary, Kerala Legal Services Authority forthwith.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE
IAP
WP(C) NO. 9636 OF 2021
11
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9636/2021
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
| EXHIBIT | P1 | THE TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.939/1962 ON THE FILE OF SRO AMBALAPPUZHA DATED 9.5.1962. |
|---|---|---|
| EXHIBIT | P2 | THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE NO.745/2019 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 29.5.19. |
| EXHIBIT | P3 | THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PARAVOOR DATED 8.9.2020. |
| EXHIBIT | P4 | THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF THE KERALA RUBBER PLANTATIONS & INDUSTRIES LTD. DATED 30.8.2010. |
| EXHIBIT | P5 | THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF INHERITANCE ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, AMBALAPPUZHA NO.KDS.742/2001/A2 DATED 17.8.2001. |
| EXHIBIT | P6 | THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS TO REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES DATED 21.8.2020. |
| EXHIBIT | P7 | THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.2306/2021 ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM DATED 23.2.2021. |
| EXHIBIT | P8 | THE TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED DATED 18.11.2006 AS DOCUMENT NO.5314/2006 OF SRO AMBALAPPUZHA. |
| EXHIBIT | P9 | THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR AFFECTING MUTATION BY ACCEPTING LAND TAX IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONERS DATED 5.3.2021. |
| RESPONDE | NTS' EX | HIBITS: NIL |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be dismissed where the petitioners suppressed material facts regarding the history of the property and litigation.
Whether the petitioners are liable to bear exemplary costs for abusing the process of court by filing a misconceived petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P.Distinguished¶42
Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P., [(2013) 2 SCC 398] · Who else cites this
Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. MunshiFollowed¶47
Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi [(1969) 1 SCC 110] · Who else cites this
A. Shanmugam v. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai SangamFollowed¶47
A. Shanmugam v. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam [(2012) 6 SCC 430] · Who else cites this
Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar VermaFollowed¶47
Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma [(1995) 1 SCC 421] · Who else cites this
Abhyudya Sanstha v. Union of IndiaFollowed¶47
Abhyudya Sanstha v. Union of India [(2011) 6 SCC 145] · Who else cites this
State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao AndolanFollowed¶47
State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan [(2011) 7 SCC 639] · Who else cites this
Kalyaneshwariv. Union of IndiaFollowed¶47
Kalyaneshwariv. Union of India [(2011) 3 SCC 287] · Who else cites this
K.D. Sharma v. SAILFollowed¶55
K.D. Sharma v. SAIL [(2008) 12 SCC 481] · Who else cites this
Buddhi Kota Subbarao v. K. ParasaranFollowed¶56
Buddhi Kota Subbarao v. K. Parasaran [(1996) 5 SCC 530] · Who else cites this
K. NAMBIKUMAR
K.SANKAR
S.SETHU
VILLAGE OFFICER PARAVOOR
TAHSILDAR
THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
