Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the allotment of residential plots in Noida. The plaintiff-respondent, a member of the Defence Services Cooperative Housing Society, was allotted Plot D-49, Sector-30, on 06.10.1981, with possession handed over on 24.08.1991. Prior to this, his wife had been allotted Plot No. 84, Sector-15A, on 10.03.1981. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to restrain the defendant-appellant authority from re-allocating the Sector-30 plot and dispossessing him, after receiving a notice on 12.06.1996 alleging he obtained the plot by submitting a false affidavit, as the Sector-15A plot was already allotted to his wife. The appellant cancelled the allotment on 18.10.1996, citing violation of terms that prohibited a family from holding more than one plot. The Trial Court decreed the suit, holding that the lease could not be determined without notice under Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1887, and this was affirmed by the first Appellate Court and the High Court. The legal issues centered on whether the allotment could be cancelled for filing false affidavits, and whether the lower courts erred in their findings. The appellant argued that the allotment was vitiated by misrepresentation, as false affidavits were filed by both the plaintiff and his wife, concealing the prior allotment. The respondent contended that the terms and conditions were not produced on record, and that under Section 14 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Development Act, 1976, only the Chief Executive Officer could resume the plot for breaches. The Supreme Court analyzed the affidavits, noting that the plaintiff swore in 1988 that neither he nor his spouse owned any plot, despite his wife's allotment in 1981 and the execution of a lease deed in 1983. The Court found the affidavits false and held that the allotment was obtained by misrepresentation, violating the eligibility conditions. It rejected the argument based on possession, emphasizing that the affidavits pertained to allotment, not possession. The Court also referenced the terms and conditions, which explicitly barred eligibility if a spouse owned a plot. In its decision, the Supreme Court reversed the judgments of the lower courts, holding that the cancellation was justified due to the false affidavits and breach of terms, and that a substantial question of law warranted interference in the second appeal.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Lease Cancellation - False Affidavit and Misrepresentation - Uttar Pradesh Industrial Development Act, 1976, Section 14 - The appellant authority cancelled the allotment of a residential plot to the plaintiff after discovering that false affidavits were filed concealing prior allotment to his spouse. The Supreme Court held that the allotment was obtained by misrepresentation, violating eligibility conditions, and thus the cancellation was justified. The Court emphasized that no benefit can be claimed from a false affidavit. (Paras 14-16) B) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The High Court, in second appeal, did not interfere with the findings of the lower courts. The Supreme Court found that a substantial question of law arose regarding the effect of false affidavits on allotment validity, warranting reversal of the decree. (Paras 13, 17) C) Contract Law - Terms and Conditions - Eligibility and Breach - Not mentioned - The terms and conditions of allotment prohibited a person or their spouse from owning more than one plot in Noida. The plaintiff's spouse was allotted a plot prior to the plaintiff's allotment, and false affidavits were filed to conceal this, constituting a breach. The Court held that such breach justified cancellation under the terms. (Paras 8-9, 15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the allotment of a residential plot could be cancelled due to the filing of false affidavits by the allottee and his spouse, and whether the lower courts erred in decreeing the suit for declaration.
Final Decision
Supreme Court allowed the appeal, reversed the judgments of the lower courts, and held that the allotment was rightly cancelled due to false affidavits and breach of eligibility conditions.
Law Points
- False affidavit vitiates allotment
- eligibility conditions binding
- lease cancellation permissible for misrepresentation
- civil court jurisdiction invoked despite false affidavit
- substantial question of law in second appeal
