A.Shanmugam vs Ariya K.R.K.M.N.P.Sangam Tr.Pres.Etc

4. The property in question belonged to one, Muthu Naicker, who dedicated the suit land for construction of a Dharamshala. In the southern part of India, it is called as ‘choultry’. A ‘Dharamshala’ is commonly known as ‘a place where boarding facilities are provided either free of cost or at a nominal cost’. In the instant case, a Dharamshala was to be constructed for the benefit of the Ariya Kshatriya community. The appellant’s father, Appadurai Pillai was engaged as a Watchman on a monthly salary by the respondent-Society to look after the Dharamshala and in that capacity lived in the premises with his family including the appellant.

5. According to the appellant, in the year 1994, the respondent-Society claiming to be the owner of the suit property tried to dispossess the appellant by force necessitating the appellant to file a suit in O.S. No.1143 of 1994 on the file of the Second Additional District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai praying for issuance of permanent injunction against the respondent-Society. The said suit was, however, dismissed. As against that, the appellant preferred an appeal in A.S. No.94 of 2001 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Tiruvannamalai and the said appeal was allowed and consequently, the appellant’s suit was decreed. The respondent- Society preferred a Second Appeal in S.A. No.1973 of 2002 before the High Court of Madras against the said judgment of the Additional District Judge.

11. Regarding Issue No. 2 of adverse possession, the trial court found that the appellant’s father was employed by the respondent-Society as a Watchman on a petty monthly salary and in that capacity he was allowed to stay in the suit property. The appellant did not acquire the suit property by adverse possession and the issue was rightly decided against the appellant by the trial court.

12. Regarding issue No. 4, the trial court found that the appellant’s father was residing in the suit premises as a Watchman and after his death the appellant was also allowed to continue to stay in the suit property as a Watchman.

14. The trial court also came to a definite conclusion that the appellant has concealed certain vital facts and has not approached the Court with clean hands and consequently, he is not entitled to the grant of discretionary relief of injunction.

16. The Suit No. 239 was decreed against the appellant. Aggrieved by this, the appellant preferred First Appeal before the District Judge which was allowed on 3rd April, 2009. Aggrieved by this judgment, the respondent- Society filed a Second Appeal before the High Court which was allowed. The High Court heard both the appeals filed by the respondent-Society and the same were allowed by a common judgment dated 20th April, 2011.

35. Unless wrongdoers are denied profit or undue benefit from frivolous litigations, it would be difficult to control frivolous and uncalled for litigations. Experience also reveals that our Courts have been very reluctant to grant the actual or realistic costs. We would like to explain this by giving this illustration. When a litigant is compelled to spend Rs.1 lac on a frivolous litigation there is hardly any justification in awarding Rs. 1,000/- as costs unless there are special circumstances of that case. We need to decide cases while keeping pragmatic realities in view. We have to ensure that unscrupulous litigant is not permitted to derive any benefit by abusing the judicial process.

………………………………J [DALVEER BHANDARI] ………………………………J [DIPAK MISRA] NEW DELHI, APRIL 27, 2012.