LexA. SHANMUGAM versus ARIYA KSHATRIYA RAJAKULA VAMSATHU MADALAYA NANDHAVANA PARIPALANAI SANGAM REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.