{"id":263696,"date":"2022-03-15T10:00:07","date_gmt":"2022-03-15T04:30:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=263696"},"modified":"2022-03-17T08:52:39","modified_gmt":"2022-03-17T03:22:39","slug":"law-on-filing-false-affidavit-can-defaulter-get-benefit-of-equity-read-what-made-the-supreme-court-reverse-concurrent-findings-of-courts","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/15\/law-on-filing-false-affidavit-can-defaulter-get-benefit-of-equity-read-what-made-the-supreme-court-reverse-concurrent-findings-of-courts\/","title":{"rendered":"Law on filing false affidavit: Can defaulter get benefit of equity? Read what made the Supreme Court reverse concurrent findings of Courts"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court: <\/strong>The Division Bench of Hemant Gupta*<\/strong> and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ., held that a person who misleads the Authority in obtaining allotment of a plot is not entitled to any relief.<\/p>\n

While adjudicating a case where the plaintiff had filed a false affidavit to obtain a plot, the Bench rejected the benefit of equity to the plaintiff holding that,<\/p>\n

\n

\u201c\u2026affidavits filed were not mere sheet of paper but a solemn statement made before a person authorized to administer oath or to accept affirmation. The plaintiff had breached such solemn statement made on oath.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Factual Matrix<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

The plaintiff-respondent was allotted a residential plot in Sector- 30, Noida as a member of the Defence Services Cooperative Housing Society; however, prior to the allotment of the said plot, another plot in Sector- 15A, Noida was already allotted to wife of the plaintiff. Consequently, the plaintiff was served with a notice that the Sector 30 plot had been obtained by him by submitting a false affidavit as Sector 15A plot was already allotted to his wife.<\/p>\n

The grievance of the plaintiff was that since the Sector 15A plot had been sold after obtaining permission from the appellant, therefore, the Sector 30 plot was the only plot in his possession. With the said claim, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, restraining the defendant from re-allocating the Sector 30 plot and from dispossessing the plaintiff from the same. After considering the reply, and the factum that the plaintiff intentionally concealed information of allotment and filed a false affidavit for the Sector 30 plot, the authority concerned cancelled the allotment of Sector 30 plot.<\/p>\n

Concurrent Findings of the Courts Below<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

The Trial Court held that the lease executed in favour of the plaintiff could not be determined merely by passing the subject order in terms of Section 111 (g) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1887 as no notice for determination of lease under the said section had been issued. Therefore, all rights in the lease would survive. The findings of the Trial Court were concurrently upheld by the first Appellate Court and the High Court. The High Court further held that plaintiff and his wife had no ulterior motive to perpetrate fraud on the appellants as there was no willful or dishonest intention on the part of the plaintiff and his wife.<\/p>\n

Submissions of the Plaintiff<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

The plaintiff submitted that the plot at Sector 15A was applied for because there was an uncertainty on account of litigation between the society of which he was a member with the appellant authority. It was pleaded that since the plaintiff was interested in Sector 30 plot as member of the Society, therefore the wife of the plaintiff had transferred the Sector 15A plot after obtaining permission from the appellant.<\/p>\n

Findings and Conclusion<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

Contrary to the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the Bench observed the following faults on the part of the plaintiff:<\/p>\n