K. Nambikumar and others v. Village Officer, Paravoor Village, Tahsildar, Registrar of Companies, and A.R. Mohamed Kabeer

**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 12[TH] 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. 2. For disposal of the petition, some essential facts need to be stated: 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” 3. An application seeking impleadment was filed by one A.R.Mohamed Kabeer claiming that he was one of the shareholders of the company. It is stated in the application seeking impleadment that Sri.Krishna Swamy Reddiar was the Managing Director of M/s Kerala Rubber Plantations and Industries Ltd. till 1967 and thereafter, by sale deed No.4873/2003 dated **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. 4. I have heard Sri.C.K.Sreejith, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.P.B.Subramanyan, the learned counsel appearing for the party respondent and the learned Government Pleader. 5. Sri. C.K.Sreejith, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioners be permitted to withdraw this petition. 6. I have considered the submissions. In the affidavit filed by the additional 4th respondent, he has referred to the cancellation of the mutation effected in favour of the petitioners and the confirmation of the said order by the District Collector in exercise of revisional powers. The institution of O.S.No. 379 of 2012 by the petitioners and the dismissal of the suit by all courts has also been stated. The petitioners have not attempted to controvert any of these aspects. 7. In **Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P** ., [(2013) 2 SCC 398] while deprecating the practice of suppression of material facts, the Apex Court had observed thus : 35. With the passage of time, it has been realised that people used to feel proud to tell the truth in the courts, irrespective of the consequences but that practice no longer proves true, in all cases. The court does not sit simply as an umpire in a contest between two parties and declare at the end of the combat as to **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. 36. The party not approaching the court with clean hands would be liable to be non-suited and such party, who has also succeeded in polluting the stream of justice by making patently false statements, cannot claim relief, especially under Article 136 of the Constitution. While approaching the court, a litigant must state correct facts and come with clean hands. Where such statement of facts is based on some information, the source of such information must also be disclosed. Totally misconceived petition amounts to an abuse of process of court and such a litigant is not required to be dealt with lightly, as a petition containing misleading and inaccurate statement, if filed, to **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]) 37. The person seeking equity must do equity. It is not just the clean hands, but also clean mind, clean heart and clean objective that are the equi-fundamentals of judicious litigation. The legal maxim jure naturae aequum est neminem cum alterius detrimento et injuria fieri locupletiorem, which means that it is a law of nature that one should not be enriched by the loss or injury to another, is the percept for courts. Wide jurisdiction of the court should not become a source of abuse of process of law by the disgruntled litigant. Careful exercise is also necessary to ensure that the litigation is genuine, not motivated by extraneous considerations and imposes an obligation upon the litigant to disclose the true facts and approach the court with clean hands. 38. No litigant can play “hide and seek” with the courts or adopt “pick and choose”. True facts ought to be disclosed as the court knows law, but not facts. One, who does not come with candid facts and clean breast cannot hold a writ of the court with soiled hands. Suppression or concealment of material facts is impermissible to a litigant or even as a technique of advocacy. In such cases, the court is duty-bound to discharge rule nisi and such applicant is required to be dealt with for contempt of court **WP(C) NO. 9636 OF 2021** **9** for abusing the process of court. (K.D. Sharma v. SAIL[(2008) 12 SCC 481] .) 39. Another settled canon of administration of justice is that no litigant should be permitted to misuse the judicial process by filing frivolous petitions. No litigant has a right to unlimited drought upon the court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be used as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions. (Buddhi Kota Subbarao v. K. Parasaran [(1996) 5 SCC 530]) 8. In the case on hand, it is obvious that the petitioners have suppressed the entire facts and have filed this writ petition with malafide intent. A blatant attempt was made to secure orders from this Court without disclosing true, complete and correct facts. A Court of Law is also a Court of Equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches this Court, he must place all the facts without any reservation. While exercising power under Article 226, this Court will indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the court, the court will have to dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, **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. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioners are not entitled for any of the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. This writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed imposing a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) on the petitioners, to the Kerala Legal Services Authority, within a period of three weeks from this day. In case of any default in payment of cost, it would be open to the Kerala Legal Services Authority to recover the said amount from the petitioners by initiating revenue recovery proceedings. 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. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL