Read Time: 07 minutes
The high court noted that a fraud on the court is worse by several degrees of magnitude and has a much wider impact and effect.
A division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice GS Patel and Justice Madhav Jamdar recently observed that Proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 should not be used to grab property illicitly.
“Proceedings under the MWPSC Act are not meant to be used to grab property illicitly. What has been done is a fraud on the Court and a fraud on the statute,” the court observed.
The high court was hearing a revision plea filed by a daughter against the order of the court dated 25 November 2021.
The high court in its November 2021 order had recorded that the father of the petitioner had an absolute right over the flat and the petitioner did not have any kind of right over the flat.
However, the court through the revision application was informed that before it passed the order on 25 November 2021, the father on 5 August 2021 had transferred the property to her other daughters by way of a gift. This meant that at the time of the judgment of the court, the father was not an absolute owner of the flat and in fact had no rights in the flat, the daughter through her revision petition submitted.
The court in its order in the revision plea said that it was clear that the order of November 25 was obtained on a representation to the court whch was false and incorrect to the knowledge of the father and possibly the other donee daughters who were also arrayed as parties.
The high court in its order recorded that fraud on a court is worse by several degrees of magnitude and has a much wider impact.
“It is often said that fraud vitiates everything. While this is necessarily true in ordinary or commonplace transactional matters, a fraud on a Court is worse by several degrees of magnitude. It has a much wider effect and impact. It not only seriously prejudices the rights of parties, but it undermines the authority of a Court. That an act of a Court should not prejudice a party is equally well settled, and this is particularly so if an order of Court has been obtained by fraud, misleading, deception and deliberate suppression. All these clearly exist in the present case,” the court noted.
The high court then restored the status quo as on the date of filing of the writ petition and set aside the order of 25 November 2021.
The court further allowed the daughter to file a formal interim application to amend the restored Writ Petition and to seek further relief regarding the Gift Deed.
The high court observed that in such cases it would impose punitive costs but did not do so in the present matter because of the family relation and the father being a senior citizen.
“In a case such as this, we would ordinarily have been inclined to impose heavy and even punitive costs. We refrain from doing so only because of the family relations in question and because the 2nd Respondent is a senior citizen,” the court noted.
Case Title: Shweta Shetty vs State of Maharashtra through its Chief Secretary & Ors
Please Login or Register
