Read Time: 05 minutes

Madras High Court, while dismissing an appeal with cost, reprimanded the advocate for the appellant stating that “it is a matter of concern that the noble profession that it was once called may now have been reduced by some practitioners to a mere trade or even worse.”

The Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Mrs. Justice S. Ananthi said,

“Oftentimes, instead of appropriate advice being given to a client, devices are chalked out to aid the client that may even border on abetting. These are areas of concern that need to be addressed by the disciplining authority, provided such authority was disciplined itself.”

The appeal was filed challenging an earlier order of the court stating that some documents being fraudulently registered and the prayer before the Writ Court was to declare certain deeds as null and void.

The Court noted that the appeal was filed, possibly, to avoid the liability to a secured creditor or a bank.

Calling the appeal frivolous, the Court said,

“Apart from the Writ Court finding the averments in the affidavit to be “completely jumbled up and disjoined” and the matter being beyond comprehension in how it had been presented, the Court noticed that a bald case of fraud had been made out to challenge the ownership of properties by others.”

The court stressed that,

“It is elementary that questions of title are not gone into in the writ jurisdiction, which is primarily a remedy available in the public law field. In any event, issues as to fraud and forgery cannot be decided on affidavit evidence in summary proceedings and writ petitions are, generally, decided in such manner and without recording any evidence.”

Court further stated that the writ petition was nothing more than a kite-flying exercise to put another person’s title in cloud to obtain an undue advantage.

Stating the abovesaid reasons, the Court imposed a cost of Rs.20,000 on appellants to be paid to the respondents. Bench further directed that the respondents will be entitled to initiate appropriate proceedings to obtain Rs.2,500/- each from the appellants together with interest.

Concluding the order court highlighted that it may also be time for the advocate for the appellants to introspect.

(Case Title: S. Pichai and P. Murugeshwari vs. The District Registrar, Theni and Ors.)