Suppression Of Material Facts Is Fraud On Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Injunction Order Over Elephant Custody

The Court was hearing a first appeal challenging the order of the Sub Court directing the parties to maintain status quo regarding the custody of an elephant named “Oottoly Raman.”

A Bench comprising Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim, while making these observations, remarked that “when a person approaches the Court with unclean hands, suppressing the material facts, it is well settled that he should summarily be thrown out of the Court without granting any relief.”

The appellant was represented by Advocate C. Unnikrishnan, while Senior Advocate S. Sreekumar, assisted by Advocate Philip T. Varghese, appeared for the respondent.

Background

The dispute arose over the custody of an elephant that had changed hands several times. The animal was originally gifted to a spiritual institution by its owner, and the appellant had been caring for it as a trainer associated with the institution.

Years later, the institution returned the elephant to its previous owner, who then purportedly gifted it to another person.

After disagreements arose about its ownership, a criminal case was filed, and the Magistrate’s Court eventually granted temporary custody of the elephant to the appellant. However, soon after, the new claimant filed a civil suit during the court vacation and obtained an ex parte injunction preventing the appellant from taking the elephant.

The Sub Court later directed both sides to maintain status quo, prompting the appellant to challenge the order before the High Court.

Court’s Observation

The Kerala High Court found that the plaintiff had filed the injunction application without disclosing the fact that the Magistrate’s Court had already granted interim custody of the elephant to the appellant. This omission, the Court held, was material since the disclosure could have altered the Vacation Court’s decision to grant an injunction.

The Bench observed that “the suppression of the Order of the Magistrate’s Court dated 18.12.2023, granting interim custody of the elephant in favour of Defendant No.1, was very much material and relevant,” and that the plaintiff had filed the civil suit “to circumvent the Order of the Magistrate’s Court.”

The Court noted that the plaintiff’s conduct amounted to approaching the court with unclean hands and that the cause of action itself appeared doubtful, as there was no evidence of any attempt by the defendants to take forcible possession of the elephant.

Invoking the maxim “fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant” (fraud and justice never dwell together), the Bench referred to several Supreme Court precedents, including S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994), Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India (2007), and Nidhi Kaim v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2017), reaffirming that orders obtained by fraud or concealment of material facts cannot be permitted to stand.

The Court further cited Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley (1956), wherein Lord Denning had observed that “no Court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud”, stating that “fraud unravels everything.”

The Bench concluded that the Trial Court had erred by not considering the suppression of facts and should have dismissed the injunction application outright instead of examining the merits of the case.

Conclusion

Setting aside the order of the Sub Court, the High Court dismissed the plaintiff’s application for an injunction and allowed the appellant’s plea to vacate the interim order. The Court directed that the suit be decided independently on its merits, untrammelled by the findings in the present judgment.

Cause Title: Jayakrishna Menon v. Krishnankutty and Another (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:72453)

Appearances

Appellant: Advocates C. Unnikrishnan, Vivek Nair, Pinky R., and others

Respondents: Senior Advocate S. Sreekumar, assisted by Advocate Philip T. Varghese and others

Click here to read/download Judgment