1993 )BC546 (SC ), II (1993 )BC546 (SC ), 1994 (1 )BLJR216 , 1993 (3 ) CCC 620 (SC ), 1994 CivilCC131 , 1994 GLH(1 )81 , 1993 INSC 344 , JT1993 (6 )SC 331 , 1994 -1 -LW21 , 1994 (I )OLR(SC )201 , 1994 (1 )PLJR39 , (1995 )109(1) PLR293 , 1994 1 RRR253 , 1993 (4 )SCALE277 , (1994 )1 SCC1 , [1993 ]Supp3 SCR422 , 1994 (1 )UJ1 , ,MANU/SC/0192/1994
Kuldip Singh#P.B. Sawant#22468SC3800Judgment/OrderAIR#APLJ#BC#BC#BLJR#CCC#CivilCC#GLH#INSC#JT#LW#MANU#OLR#PLJR#PLR#RRR#SCALE#SCC#SCR(Supp)#UJKuldip Singh,SUPREME COURT OF INDIA2013-12-3Fraudulently,General Explanations,Lease,Permanent Injunction,Easementary Rights,Permanent Injunction,Company Matters,Permanent Injunction,Equity Principle,Principles of Temporary Injunction,Formation Defects Rendering Contracts Voidable,Fraud or collusion in obtaining judgment, or incompetency of Court, may be proved,General,Finality of orders,Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies,Fraud And Corruption,Application for setting aside arbitral award,Recourse Against Arbitral Award,Definitions.,Preliminary,Law of Evidence,Law of Arbitration, Conciliation and Mediation,Civil Procedure,Consumer Law,Law of Injunction,Indian Penal Code -->
MANU/SC/0192/1994
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 994 of 1972
Decided On: 27.10.1993
Appellants: S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Respondent: Jagannath (Dead) by L.Rs. and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Kuldip Singh and P.B. Sawant JUDGMENT
Kuldip Singh, J.
1. "Fraud-avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal" observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago.
It is the settled
proposition of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and honest in the eyes of law. Such a judgment/decree - by the first court or by the highest court - has to be treated as a nullity by every court, whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any court even in
collateral proceedings.
2. Predecessor-in-interest of the respondents-plaintiffs filed application for final decree for partition and separate possession of the plaint -properties and for mesne profits. The appellants-defendants contested the application on the ground that the preliminary decree, which was sought to be made final, was obtained by fraud and, as such, the application was liable to be dismissed. The trial Judge accepted the contention and dismissed the application for grant of final decree. The respondents-plaintiffs went in appeal before the High Court. A Division Bench of the High Court went through plethora of case - law and finally allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the trial court. This appeal is by way of certificate granted by the High Court.
3. One Jagannath was the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. He was working as a clerk with one Chunilal Sowcar. Jagannath purchased at court auction the properties in dispute which belonged to the appellants. Chunilal Sowcar had obtained a decree and the court sale was made in execution of the said decree. Jagannath had purchased the property in the court auction on behalf of Chunilal Sowcar, the decree-holder. By a registered deed dated November 25, 1945, Jagannath relinq........