Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Kerala, Single Bench of Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim recently set aside an ad-interim injunction that had restrained the defendants from taking forcible possession of an elephant in the plaintiff’s custody. The Court noted that the impugned order was procured through concealment of crucial details concerning prior legal proceedings. Holding that the plaintiff had suppressed material facts to secure the injunction, the Bench ruled that such conduct amounted to fraud on the court. Consequently, the trial court’s direction to maintain status quo was quashed, and the defendants’ plea to vacate the injunction was allowed.

The dispute arose over the ownership and possession of a captive elephant named ‘Oottoly Raman’. The appellant, Jayakrishna Menon, was the first defendant in a civil suit for permanent prohibitory injunction filed by Krishnankutty, the first respondent. The respondent claimed ownership of the elephant through a gift deed (Ext.A1) executed by the second defendant, Sadanandan, who was the original owner of the elephant. The plaintiff asserted that Mata Amritanandamayi Madom had previously owned the elephant and had returned it to Sadanandan through a separate deed (Ext.A1(a)) after finding it difficult to manage.

Also Read: Magistrates Can Direct Voice Samples from Witnesses as Well as Accused; Article 20(3) Not Violated: Supreme Court

According to the appellant, the respondent had been merely entrusted with the care of the elephant, but later fabricated documents to falsely claim ownership. Based on the appellant’s complaint, Crime No.1000/2023 was registered under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging criminal breach of trust and cheating. The Judicial First-Class Magistrate (JFCM), Karunagappally, initially dismissed a custody petition filed by the appellant under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, holding that the elephant had not been physically seized and produced before the court.

Subsequently, the appellant approached the High Court in Crl.M.C. No.7600/2023. The High Court set aside the Magistrate’s order and directed reconsideration. On December 18, 2023, the Magistrate granted interim custody of the elephant to the appellant. Immediately thereafter, the respondent filed a suit before the Vacation Court, Thrissur, during the Christmas recess, and obtained an ex parte injunction preventing the appellant from taking possession. The respondent also filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, which ordered both parties to maintain status quo regarding custody of the elephant pending hearing.

The appellant later moved to vacate the interim injunction, arguing that the respondent had misled the Vacation Court by suppressing the existence of the Magistrate’s order granting custody to him. The Trial Court, however, directed the parties to maintain status quo until further orders. The appellant challenged this decision before the High Court in FAO No.102 of 2024.

Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim, after examining the materials and arguments, stated that “the suit is filed essentially against taking forcible possession of an elephant” and noted that the possession of the elephant had admittedly remained with the plaintiff. The Court observed that although ordinarily a person in possession may be entitled to protection against forcible dispossession, such protection is unavailable when the party has “approached the Court with unclean hands or is guilty of suppression of material facts.”

The Court found that the plaintiff had filed the suit during the Christmas holidays and obtained an ex parte injunction “immediately after the passing of the order of the Magistrate’s Court dated 18.12.2023 in favour of the Defendant No.1.” Justice Hakhim held that the plaintiff had deliberately withheld disclosure of this order while moving the Vacation Court. The judgment recorded, “The plaintiff deliberately suppressed the said order fully knowing that if he had disclosed the said order, the Court would not grant interim order of injunction in his favour.”

The Court further remarked that the suppression was “very much material and relevant” since the Vacation Court’s order would not have been granted if the Magistrate’s order was disclosed. The Court stated that the plaintiff’s conduct reflected mala fides and an attempt to “circumvent the order of the Magistrate’s Court dated 18.12.2023 in favour of the Defendant No.1.”

Justice Hakhim also recorded doubts regarding the cause of action presented in the plaint, noting that “the defendants are attempting to obtain possession of the elephant through legal means. They never attempted to obtain possession forcefully.” The Court held that the claim of a threat of forcible possession was unsupported by evidence and was unlikely given the nature of the animal involved.

Citing the maxim “fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant” (fraud and justice never dwell together), the Court stated that a litigant who suppresses material facts is not entitled to relief. Referring to multiple precedents, the judgment quoted S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath and Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India, observing that “if there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the Court, the Court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into the merits of the matter.”

The Court also referred to Vishnu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025 KHC 6630), where it was held that judicial orders obtained through concealment and fraud lack legal sanctity, and to Nidhi Kaim v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which held that even trivial wrongdoing based on fraud cannot be condoned. The Court stated, “When a person approaches the Court with unclean hands, suppressing the material facts, it is well settled that he should summarily be thrown out of the Court without granting any relief.”

Finally, quoting Denning, L.J. in Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley, Justice Hakhim reiterated that “no Court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud; that no judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud; and that fraud unravels everything.”

Also Read: Kerala High Court Dismisses PIL Against Arundhati Roy’s Mother Mary Comes To Me, Directs Tobacco Law Complaints to Expert Panel

Justice Hakhim held that “the suppression made by the plaintiff is very serious, which would disentitle him from obtaining any relief.” The Court observed that the Trial Court “ought not to have considered the matter on merits” and “ought to have denied the injunction and should have dismissed I.A. No.1/2024. The impugned order is liable to be set aside, dismissing I.A. No.1/2024 and allowing I.A. No.6/2024. It is ordered accordingly.”

The Court also declined the request of the respondent’s counsel to remand the matter for fresh consideration, stating that “relief cannot be granted to the plaintiff, enabling him to obtain the same order and thereby retain the benefit of the order obtained by fraud.” The Bench directed that the Trial Court dispose of the main suit “untrammeled by the observations contained herein.”

Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellant: Sri. C. Unnikrishnan (Kollam), Sri. D. Jayakrishnan, Shri Vijaykrishnan S. Menon, Shri Vivek Nair P., Shri M.R. Radhakrishnan, Shri Praveen P., Smt. Pinky R., Smt. Sruthi Sindhu, Shri Arjun Harikumar, Shri Ananthu R. Murali.

For the Respondents: Sri. S. Sreekumar (Senior Advocate), Sri. Philip T. Varghese, Sri. Thomas T. Varghese, Smt. Achu Subha Abraham, Shri Sujesh Menon V.B., Smt. V.T. Litha, Smt. K.R. Monisha.

Case Title: Jayakrishna Menon v. Krishnankutty & Another
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:72453
Case Number: FAO No.102 of 2024
Bench: Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim