Kerala High Court Sets Aside Injunction Against Forcible Possession Of Elephant Obtained By Suppressing Material Facts About Earlier Cases

The Kerala High Court recently passed a judgment setting aside an ad-interim injunction granted against the defendants from taking forcible possession of an elephant in the plaintiff's custody after noting that the impugned order was obtained through suppression of material facts regarding earlier litigation.Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim further opined that since the plaintiff came before court with unclean hands, he is not entitled to a relief of fresh consideration by the trial court. He also clarified that the trial court has to dispose of the suit untrammeled by the observations in the judgment.The parties in the case are against each other for the custody of an elephant named 'Oottoly Raman'. It originally belonged to defendant no. 2 and was later gifted to Mata Amritandamayi Madom but in the possession of the Kalari Gurukkal of the Madom, defendant no. 1. The plaintiff claimed that the elephant was returned to defendant no. 2 as it had constant 'musth' and thereafter, gifted to the plaintiff, who was in possession of the animal from 2017. However, the defendants contended that the plaintiff was entrusted only to look after the elephant, and he forged documents to claim false ownership.Subsequently, defendant no.1 registered a crime with the police alleging criminal breach of trust and cheating, following which the police seized the elephant symbolically. In order to obtain interim custody, defendant no.1 filed petition before the Magistrate but was unsuccessful. Challenging this, a petition was filed before the High Court (Crl.M.C. 7600/2023), which directed the Magistrate to consider the matter afresh. On reconsideration, interim custody was granted to defendant no.1. It is at this juncture that the plaintiff filed suit before the trial court during vacation and obtained injunction order against the defendants from taking forcible possession of the elephant.The plaintiff also filed SLP challenging High Court's decision in Crl.M.C. 7600/2023 and the Supreme Court passed order for maintaining status quo regarding custody till next hearing. Thereafter, defendant filed petition before trial for vacating the injunction and the impugned order was passed.In the present proceedings, the defendants contended that the plaintiff obtained the injunction order concealing material facts and the order ought to be set aside. The plaintiff stated that the facts which were not revealed were not material to the suit. It was also contended the insurance policy on the elephant is taken in the plaintiff's name, and this prima facie show that he is its owner.Considering the contentions, the Court observed:“Since the possession is with the Plaintiff, in normal circumstances, the Plaintiff is entitled to get an Order of temporary injunction against taking forcible possession by the Defendants, on the legal principles that everybody is bound by the Rule of Law and nobody shall take the law into his own hand and that nobody shall take possession of any property from another, otherwise than through legal means. Nevertheless, if the Plaintiff has approached the Court with unclean hands or if the Plaintiff is guilty of suppression of material facts, the Court shall not extend its help to protect his rights.”The Court further noted that since there is an order of the Magistrate granting possession of the elephant to defendant no.1, this was a material fact. It opined that the plaintiff deliberately suppressed the same knowing that disclosure of the same would not have resulted in the trial court giving an order in his favour.It also found that prima facie the cause of the action in the suit is doubtful since the defendants only sought to take possession through legal means, not forcefully.The Court, thus, allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order.Case No: FAO No. 102 of 2024Case Title: Jayakrishna Menon v. Krishnankutty and Anr.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 647Counsel for the appellant: C. Unnikrishnan (Kollam), D. Jayakrishnan, Vijaykrishnan S. Menon, Vivek Nair P., M.R. Radhakrishnan, Praveen P., Pinky R., Sruthi Sindhu, Arjun Harikumar, Ananthu R MuraliCounsel for the respondents: S. Sreekumar (Sr.), Philip T. Varghese, Thomas T. Varghese, Achu Subha Abraham, Sujesh Menon V.B., V.T.Litha, K.R. MonishaClick to Read/Download Judgment

Kerala High Court Sets Aside Injunction Against Forcible Possession Of Elephant Obtained By Suppressing Material Facts About Earlier Cases

K. Salma Jennath

Tags