1978 (2) TMI 224 - SC - Indian Laws

Court denies issue framing on legal necessity, cites estoppel. Defendant's appeal dismissed; misrepresentation leads to special costs.

The High Court rejected the demand for framing an issue on legal necessity, citing estoppel under Section 116 of the Evidence Act. The defendant's appeal ... - Issues:1. Legal necessity for the transfer in favor of the plaintiff.2. Estoppel of the defendant from questioning the title of the landlord.3. Misrepresentation in the special leave petition filed by the defendant.Detailed Analysis:1. The plaintiff landlord purchased a shop and terminated the tenancy of the defendant-petitioner. The defendant questioned the legality of the transfer, alleging want of title in the plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest and invalidity of the sale deed. The High Court rejected the demand for framing an issue on legal necessity, citing estoppel under Section 116 of the Evidence Act. The defendant challenged this view, but the High Court dismissed the appeal, noting the defendant's admission in rent notes and sale deed. The defendant then filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court, alleging misrepresentation regarding ownership in the rent note.2. The Supreme Court granted special leave to appeal but later considered the respondent's application for revocation due to the defendant's false assertion in the special leave petition. The Court found that the rent deed clearly mentioned the plaintiff's ownership, contrary to the defendant's claim. The Court emphasized the significance of Section 116 of the Evidence Act and the misleading assertion made by the defendant. The defendant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the misrepresentation, leading the Court to revoke the special leave granted.3. Citing precedents, the Court highlighted the importance of approaching the Court with clean hands and refraining from misleading or false statements. The Court emphasized the discretionary nature of Article 136 jurisdiction and the need for exceptional cases involving serious injustice. The judgment underscored the Court's role in preventing abuses of legal processes and ensuring timely resolution of disputes. Ultimately, the Court revoked the special leave, rejected the petition, vacated the stay, and awarded special costs to the plaintiff-respondent, emphasizing the need to deter frivolous appeals and uphold the integrity of the legal system.