Delhi High Court
Smt. Champa Arora And Others vs Shri Shiv Lal Arora And Ors. on 27 August, 2001
Equivalent citations: 94(2001)DLT658, 2001(62)DRJ601, 2002 A I H C 239, (2002) 62 DRJ 601 (2001) 94 DLT 658, (2001) 94 DLT 658
ORDER V.S. Aggarwal, J.
1. Ram Rakha Mal was the father of Om Prakash. Plaintiff NO. 1 Smt. Champa Arora and plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are the heirs of Om Prakash Ram Rakha Mal earlier was living in Pakistan. After the partition of the country., Ram Rakha Mal along with his two brothers, were registered as refugees. A claim had been lodged with the Regional Settlement Commissioner, Jam Nagar House, New Delhi. Application was field for compensation. Out of the compensation received, Shri Ram Rakha Mal along with other money earned with the sons, purchased two quarters, namely D-102 and D-104, Karwala, B.K.Dutt Colony, New Delhi. He also purchased plot No.R-795, New Rajender Nagar, New Delhi and payment was made out of the adjustment of compensation amount awarded by the Regional Settlement Commissioner. Shri Ram Rakha Mal, even purchased tow residential plots in Sector 15-A, Chandigarh, No.101 and Plot No.3.
2. The present suit has been filed by the widow of the son of Ram Rakha Mal, Shri Om Prakash and the two sons of Shri Om Prakash, seeking partition and rendition of accounts of the properties of Ram Rakha Mal. It is asserted that as per information given by Om Prakash to Plaintiff No.1, he was employed in Indian Air force. During the period he was unmarried, he used to pay his entire salary to Ram Rakha Mal. His contribution was necessary for reconstruction and addition to the two storeyed plot No.795, New Rajender Nagar, New Delhi and in this process, he had helped his father deceased Ram Rakha Mal. Shri Om Prakash even has since died. The plaintiffs, who have filed the present suit, thus, claim partition of the properties left by Ram Rakha Mal at New Rajender Nagar, Karwala, Ali Ganj, New Delhi and the two properties at Chandigarh, besides with respect to the other moveable properties, purported to have been left by Ram Rakha Mal.
3. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiffs seek an ad interim order to restrain the defendants, who are the other heirs of ram Rakha Mal from selling,, parting with or mortgaging or creating third party interests with respect to the properties referred to above and even from operating the bank account in the State Bank of India and other banks. The defendants have prayed for vacation of the ex parte order that was granted to the plaintiffs. By this common Order, both the above said I.As.No.8499/95 and 2357/90 can conveniently be disposed.
4. In the written statement the suit and in the replies the above said applications have been contested. It has been asserted that Shri Ram Rakha Mal had executed will dated 3.3.1987. He had debarred the plaintiffs from inheriting any of his moveable or immoveable properties. Plaintiff No.1 is the widow of the pre-deceased son of Ram Rakha Mal, who died on 4.9.1977. Ram Rakha Mal had allowed the plaintiffs to live in two rooms on the ground floor of House No.R-795, New Rajender Nagar. Plaintiffs were disrespectful and quarrel some. Plaintiffs even had filed a suit against Ram Rakha Mal in the Court of Civil Judge, Delhi (Suit NO.135/87). It was claimed that property No.R-795, New Rajender Nagar is the joint family property. Shri Ram Rakha Mal had filed the written statement, controverting those allegations of the plaintiffs. The Civil Judge had held that the plaintiffs had no prima-facie case. This fact is stated to have been suppressed. It is denied that plaintiffs have any right, title or interest in the property. The defendants assert that t hey have already field a petition for grant of probate on basis of the Will of Shri Ram Rakha Mal, which is pending before the learned District Judge, Delhi. It is denied that the properties referred to by the plaintiffs are ancestral in nature.
5. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has highlighted the fact that the properties referred to are ancestral properties and, therefore, on the death of Om Prakash son of Ram Rakha Mal, the plaintiffs would also have the right in the said properties and thus, can seek partition, Keeping in view the said assertion, it was asserted further that therefore, the defendants should be restrained from creating any third-party interesting the said properties, which may affect the valuable rights of the plaintiffs.
6. Though in the first blush, the plaintiffs appear to be having a prima-facie case, but on closure scrutiny, it does not appear to be so. Reasons are obvious.
7. It is admitted that the properties had been purchased by Ram Rakha Mal from the amount of compensation received in lieu of the properties left behind in Pakistan by Ram Rakha Mal. The attention of the court has been drawn towards the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of BALDEV RAJ versus Man MOHAN & OTHERS . This Court, while disposing of the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, held that if properties acquired with the aid of compensation against the properties left in Pakistan, it can not partake character of ancestral property. In other words, the plaintiffs can not claim, therefore, that the properties in questions , which were purchased by Ram Rakha Mal with the aid of compensation of properties left in Pakistan, it can not be termed that the said properties were ancestral qua Ram Rakha Mal.
8. During the course of submissions, it had not been disputed that plaintiffs have filed a civil suit against Ram Rakha Mal during his life time. The ad interim injunction, claiming that the properties were joint in nature, had been refused by the Civil Judge, Delhi. co-related with the same fact is the Will that is purported to have been executed b Ram Rakha Mal. It has been asserted that the plaintiffs were disinherited by Ram Rakha Mal because of their insolent behavior. The Will is subject matter of adjudication before the District Judge, Delhi but keeping in view the earlier litigation, for purposes of the present Order, it can safely be concluded that Ram Rakha Mal might well have excluded the plaintiffs form inheriting his properties. Prima-facie, the said finding would be borne from the above facts, and therefore, the plaintiffs can not be held to be having a prima facie case.
9. There is another way of looking at the matter. It is a settled principle in law that a person, who seeks equity, must come with clean hands. A litigant, who suppresses a fact from the court, indeed looses the right to seek an equitable relief of ad interim injunction.
10. What is the position here? Though it is admitted that plaintiffs had field a civil suit against Ram Rakha Mal during has life time, but this fact had been suppressed in the plaint. In such an event, it may not be proper to exercise any discretion in favor of the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court, in the case of RAJABHAI ABDUL REHMAN MUNSHI versus VASUDEV DHANJIBHAI MODY expressed the same view, as under:
"A party who approaches this Court invoking the exercise of this overriding discretion of the Court must come with clean hands. If there appears on his part any attempt to overreach or mislead the court by false or untrue statements or by withholding true information which would have a bearing on the question of exercise of the discretion, the Court, would be justified in refusing to exercise the discretion or if the discretion has been exercised in revoking the leave to appeal granted even at the time of hearing of the appeal."
11. This Court, in the case of M/s. SEEMAX CONSTRUCTION 9PO LTD. versus STATE BANK OF INDIA AIR 1992 DELHI 197 also held:
9. In the plaint of the present suit or in this application the plaintiff has not made any reference to the filing of the aforesaid two suits. Mr. Jaitley contends that though even on merits the plaintiff has no case and is not entitled to an order restraining encashment of bank guarantee but without going into the merits the application deserves rejection in view of suppression of material facts about the filling of the earlier two suits.
10. The suppression of material fact by itself is a sufficient ground to decline the discretionary relief of injunction. A party seeking discretionary relief has to approach the court with clean hands and is required to disclose all material facts which may, one way or the other, affect the decision. A person deliberately concealing material facts from court is not entitled to any discretionary relief. The court can refuse to here such person on merits."
12. Reference, with advantage, can well be made to the Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, rendered in the case of CHARANJI LAL AND OTHERS versus FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, HARYANA. CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS AIR 1978 PUNJAB & HARYANA 326. Certain facts had been suppressed from the Court. It was held that ad interim injunction should be refused. The precise findings recorded were:
In the aforesaid context, we cannot but hold that there has been a malafide and calculated suppression of material facts which, if disclosed would have disentitled the petitioners to the extra-ordinary remedy under the writ jurisdiction or in any case would have materially affected the merits on both the interim and ultimate relief claimed. We categorically reject the plea of the writ petitioners that the failure to mention all these material facts clearly within their knowledge was either inadvertent or was occasioned by any bona fide omission.
13. The position, therefore, is obvious and deserves only a repetition that a person who had suppressed the facts indeed will not be entitled to any ad interim injection. The plaintiffs, in the present case, have not come to the court making a clean breast of the events. In face of that and the cumulative effect of what has been recorded here, it may be held that the plaintiffs do not have a prima-facie case.
14. As a result of the recorded reason above, the application seeking ad interim injunction is without merit and is dismissed. The ad interim injunction already granted is vacated.
Suit No.903/9015. Documents should be filed in support of the issues that have been framed, within four weeks. List it for admission/denial of documents before the Joint Registrar (O) on 20.11.2001.