Summary
In February 1994 the plaintiff sued his cousin, the defendant, for a declaration of ownership of agricultural land based on a family settlement, without mentioning any agreement to sell. He withdrew that suit in May 1994 without liberty and within a month sued for specific performance of an alleged earlier agreement to sell the same land, averring that no litigation between the parties existed. Only after the defendant objected did he claim, by replication, that the first suit was filed to save stamp duty. The trial court dismissed the suit for suppression and inconsistent stands. The first appellate court decreed it, and the High Court dismissed the second appeal. The Supreme Court restored the dismissal. The earlier suit and its withdrawal were material facts, and the averment was a trick to mislead the court. A litigant with unclean hands is not entitled to relief.
Issues
- Whether a plaintiff seeking specific performance who suppressed the filing and withdrawal of an earlier suit over the same land, and falsely averred that no litigation existed, is entitled to relief
- Whether the High Court dismissed the second appeal without application of mind
Provisions considered
- Order VII Rule 1(j), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (as applicable in Punjab)The plaint must state whether any suit between the same parties on the same grounds was previously instituted or decided, and with what result. The plaintiff's statement that no litigation existed breached this requirement. (¶ 18)
Held
- A litigant must come to court with clean hands, and a person whose case rests on falsehood can be thrown out at any stage. Suppressing a material document or proceeding to gain advantage is a fraud on the court, and a decree so obtained is a nullity (S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu, A.V. Papayya Sastry). (¶¶ 23, 24)
- The filing and withdrawal without liberty of the earlier suit over the same land was a material fact. The averment that no litigation existed 'with regard to the agreement in question' was a trick to mislead the court, and the later replication was an afterthought that also revealed an attempt to defraud the State of revenue. A party cannot approbate and reprobate. (¶¶ 16, 18, 25, 29)
- Arunima Baruah, Harjas Rai Makhija, Chaturbhai M. Patel and Svenska Handelsbanken were distinguishable. The trial court rightly dismissed the suit on the plaintiff's conduct, and the first appellate court erred in reversing it. The High Court decided with total non-application of mind, wrongly recording that the trial court had decreed the suit. (¶¶ 21, 22, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33)
Result
Appeal allowed. The judgments of the first appellate court and the High Court were set aside and the trial court's dismissal of the suit for specific performance restored; no costs.