'Fraud & Abuse Of Process Of Law': Telangana High Court Dismisses Appeal For Suppression Of Material Facts, Upholds 25K Costs

A Division Bench of the Telangana High Court declined to interfere with a dismissal order passed by a single judge, wherein a fine of Rs 25000 was imposed on the petitioner for approaching the Court with unclean hands.

In dismissing an appeal against the single judge's order Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti held the following: “If the petitioner approached the Court by suppression of material facts, it would be abuse of process of law. We hold that the petitioner/appellant has suppressed the material facts and it amounts to abuse of process of law and also fraud. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.”

The dispute surrounds a piece of land the appellant/petitioner had purchased. The appellant contended that he had purchased the property from a husband and wife (respondents 5 &6) by way of two registered sale deeds, and the Special Tribunal had arbitrarily set aside the mutation in his name. The appellant had approached the Court in 2021 challenging the said order.

The Single Judge after a thorough analysis of the arguments and evidence concluded, that the husband along with another individual (respondent 4) had purchased the suit land jointly. However, respondent no.5 under the guise of getting properties registered in their names, transferred a portion of the property in the name of his wife and a portion of the property to his name and fraudulently sold the property to the appellant/petitioner.

When respondent no.4 found out about the surreptitious acts of the husband and wife, he approached the special tribunal formed under the Telangana Records of Rights in Land & Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 to set aside the transfers made in the name of respondent no. 6 by way of gift deed and subsequently to the petitioner.

The Tribunal noted that the suit land was purchased by respondents no.4 &5 jointly and that the land was not partitioned. Both respondents no. 4 & 5 had equal claim over suit land and respondent no.5 could not have transferred any portion of the property on his own, without the consent of the 4^th respondent. Hence it set aside the transfers.

When the same was challenged before a single bench of the High Court, the Bench noted that the 4^th respondent had initiated a suit before the civil court for partition and separate possession of the suit land in which summons were sent to the 5^th & 6^th respondents along with the appellant.

Nonetheless, it found that the appellant instead of trying the matter before the Civil Court, suppressed the said fact and approached the High Court to set aside the order passed by the Tribunal. Owing to this, the single judge dismissed the petition and imposed a fine of INR25,000/- on the petitioner/appellant.

The order of the single judge was challenged by way of the present appeal. The Division Bench while dismissing the appeal, held:

“The writ petitioner has approached this Court by suppressing the material fact that the said land has been purchased jointly and the question of respondent No.5 executing a gift deed in favour of his wife i.e., respondent No.6 in respect of the joint property does not arise. These facts were not pleaded in the writ affidavit and the writ court has rightly held that there was suppression of material facts….The learned Single Judge in his detailed order discussed at length every aspect and held that the appellant has suppressed the material facts…In view of the above said discussions, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.”

W.A No. 537 of 2023

Counsel for the appellant: H.Rajesh Kumar

Counsel for Respondent No. 4: S.Srinivasa Rao representing T.Mahender Rao.

Click Here To Read/Download Single Bench Judgment 

Click Here To Read/Download Division Bench Order