HC frowns on false plea over property claim

When the appeal moved by the gardener’s family came challenging the lower court’s ruling in favour of the organisation, Justice V Parthiban said, “From the materials and the evidence, no great efforts is needed to expose the falsity of the defendants (family) claim to retain their hold over the property. The claim of the defendants edified on unalloyed lies and chicanery has unfortunately helped them to squat over the property belonging to the plaintiff trust for many years now.”

The judge noted that it cannot be disputed that the defendants’ forefathers were employed as gardeners, and added that the family misused their long occupation of the property. They resisted the claim for recovery of possession “by pleading nothing but falsehood”, the court said.

However, holding that the lower courts ought to have come down heavily on the defendants for their fake, mischievous and frivolous claim instead of discharging their duties perfunctorily, Justice Parthiban said, “When a case of this nature is put forth by the defendants, the courts below ought to have exposed the complete hollowness of the claim of the defendants as against the plaintiffs in clear terms.”

The court also criticised the lower appellate court for interfering with the judgment and decree of the trial court granting damages to the plaintiffs. “In the opinion of this court, the lower appellate court has erred completely in modifying the judgment and decree of the trial court,” the judge said.

Justice Parthiban also noted that when falsehood was the basis of the claim of the defendants, the courts need to be wary of granting any relief to such litigants. They must be dealt with severely by courts in order to show them that the courts were not to be taken for granted.