Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"Despite knowing the relationship, the plaintiff gave incorrect declaration in membership form. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff that defendant club is estopped from denying the right of Master Amoorth and Ms. Aadhya cannot be accepted for the reasons that the promise was based on false declaration made by plaintiff in the membership form..."

11. Mr. Cama took pains to point out that not only were the above findings plainly contradictory, but they were also plainly perverse and rendered the Impugned Judgement to be set aside on this ground alone.

26. Basis the above, he submitted that the Impugned Judgement, being entirely perverse, be quashed and set aside.

Submissions on behalf of the Respondents

27. Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents, at the outset pointed out that the Appellant had in the Application Form made a wilful and deliberate false declaration that Amoorth and Aadhyaa were her 'son' and 'daughter', respectively. He submitted that Amoorth and Aadhyaa were admittedly not the Appellants 'son' and 'daughter', nor were they the adopted or stepchildren of the Appellant. He thus submitted that the declaration made by the Appellant was a false declaration, on the basis of which the Club addressed the letters dated 14th September 2018 cancelling the membership of Amoorth and Aadhyaa.

37. I shall now proceed to deal with and answer the first question as follows :

A. On the aspect of misrepresentation and false declaration, while the Trial Court has in paragraph 26 of the Impugned Judgement, inter alia, held that the Appellant was estopped from claiming that the Wards were entitled to enjoy the privileges of her membership, as such membership was granted on the basis of a false declaration, it is to be noted that the Trial Court has in paragraph 23 of the Impugned Judgement, after appreciating the evidence on record, held as follows:

Thus, despite the fact that the Trial Court, based on the evidence on record, rendered a detailed finding that there was no misrepresentation or misdeclaration by the Appellant, the Trial Court has inexplicably thereafter held that the Appellant made a false declaration. These contradictory and self-defeating findings are plainly perverse.

B. A perusal of the evidence on record leaves no manner of doubt that the Appellant had, in her Application Form, disclosed the full names of the Wards, which itself indicated they had a Mugdha 28 of 39 29 Judgement-FA 1568-24.doc surname different from the Appellant. Furthermore, the Appellant had also annexed to the Application Form (i) Her passport (ii) the birth certificates of all four children, including Amoorth and Aadhyaa, which clearly name Sheetal Dayanand Shetty as their mother; (iii) the passports of Amoorth and Aadhyaa, which also clearly identified Sheetal Shetty and Dayanand Shetty as their parents; (iv) the death certificate of the Appellant's sister, i.e., Sheetal Dayanand Shetty; and (v) the Order dated 7th April 2017 appointing the Appellant and her brother as the legal guardians of the Wards. Therefore, in light of this, merely because the Appellant listed Amoorth and Aadhyaa as her 'son' and 'daughter' under "family details", it cannot be said that the Appellant made a false declaration. It would have been an entirely different matter if the Appellant had not annexed the relevant documents to the Application Form or had falsely represented that Amoorth and Aadhyaa were the Appellant's biological children, which is, however, admittedly not the case.