Kerala High Court Invalidates Injunction Order Due to Suppression of Facts and Fraud

Plaintiff's attempt to retain possession of elephant thwarted as Kerala High Court emphasizes legal sanctity and condemns fraudulent practices.

In a significant judgment, the Kerala High Court has set aside an injunction order previously granted to Jayakrishna Menon, who sought to restrain forcible possession of an elephant named 'Oottoly Raman' from the defendants, including Krishnankutty. The court found that Menon had suppressed material facts, including prior judicial orders, in his application to the Vacation Court, thus disentitling him from obtaining relief.

The case revolves around the ownership and possession dispute over the elephant originally named 'Madhu,' now known as 'Raman.' The elephant was claimed by Menon to be in his possession through a Gift Deed executed by Defendant No.2. However, the defendants argued that Menon's claim was based on forged documents and that he was merely entrusted with the elephant's care.

The controversy intensified when Menon obtained an ex parte injunction from the Vacation Court during Christmas holidays, allegedly suppressing the Magistrate's Court Order dated 18.12.2023, which had granted interim custody of the elephant to Defendant No.1. This suppression was deemed material and relevant by the Kerala High Court, as it significantly influenced the decision of the Vacation Court.

Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim, presiding over the case, emphasized the principle that fraud unravels everything. The court referred to landmark judgments from the Supreme Court, including S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath and Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India, which uphold that fraud and justice cannot coexist, and judicial orders obtained through fraudulent means lack legal sanctity.

While the Plaintiff maintained the elephant since February 2017, expending considerable resources and holding the insurance policy in his name, the court noted the plaintiff's lack of disclosure regarding prior legal proceedings, particularly those granting interim custody to Defendant No.1.

The court concluded that the Plaintiff had approached the court with unclean hands and suppressed facts that were crucial for determining the relief sought. Consequently, the injunction order was set aside, dismissing Menon's application for temporary relief and allowing Defendant No.1's plea to vacate the order.

This judgment reinforces the court's stance against fraudulent practices and underscores the necessity for transparency and honesty in legal proceedings. The court's decision ensures that the rights of parties are protected under the rule of law and that judicial processes are not subverted by deceit.

Bottom Line:

Suppression of material facts and fraud disentitle a party from obtaining relief, and judicial orders obtained through fraud lack legal sanctity.

Statutory provision(s): Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code; Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

Jayakrishna Menon v. Krishnankutty, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2794496