Doctrine of Fraud - An Apex Court citation.

S P Chengalverau Vs Jagannath – (1994) 1 SCC 1, t

While allowing the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the High Court and describing the observations of the High Court as 'wholly perverse', Kuldip Singh, J. stated:

 "The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean-hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax- evaders, bank-loan- dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court - process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, who's case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation".          (emphasis supplied)

The Apex Court proceeded to state: "A litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would he guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party".

Every court has inherent powers to recall such judgment /order where Order / judgment is alleged to have been obtained by fraud – suppression of facts – misrepresentation; or where it is brought to the notice of the Court that the Court itself has committed a mistake.

The Court concluded: "The principle of 'finality of litigation' cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants".

Judgment or Order of a Court obtained by fraud is a nullity and non-est in law.-A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P.; (2007) 4 SCC 221

Judgment or Order of a Court obtained by fraud is a nullity and non-est in law.-A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P.; (2007) 4 SCC 221

Apex Court observed that such judgment and decree obtained by playing fraud - can be challenged in any court at any time and when a judgment is obtained by a fraud, this is an exception to Article 141 of the Constitution of India and doctrine of merger-

“If any judgment or order is obtained by fraud, it cannot be said to be a judgment or order in law. A judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud on the Court, Tribunal or Authority is a nullity and non est in the eye of law. Such a judgment, decree or order by the first Court or by the final Court has to be treated as nullity by every Court, superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any Court, at any time, in appeal, revision, writ or even in collateral proceedings.”

Maintainability of Suit for declaration as legal-heir without citing any defendant i.e., against whomso-ever and without seeking any further relief.

V. Hanya Naik and ors. Vs. M. Krishna Reddy and ors.


AP High Court Decided On : Sep-11-2009 Reported in : 2009(6)ALT221

Judge : L. Narasimha Reddy,


: C.R.P. Nos. 4778 and 4867 of 2008

Appellant : V. Hanya Naik and ors. Respondent : M. Krishna Reddy


Judgement : ORDER L. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. In the recent past, the prices of land in and around the city of Hyderabad have increased in geometrical proportions. The unprecedented growth has naturally brought along with it, litigation of peculiar nature, divorced from settled principles of law. This tendency is more acute in various Courts in Ranga Reddy District. The case on hand presents an illustration. 2. The petitioners filed O.S. No. 150 of 2007 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Parigi, Ranga Reddy District, with a prayer to declare that, they are the surviving legal heirs of late, V. Rashya Naik, alias Rasiya, s/o. Puriya, @ Ponia Lambada. No one was impleaded as defendant, and it was filed against 'all concerned'. The suit was decreed on 17-03-2008. 3. Respondents 2 and 3 herein filed I.A. No. 222 of 2008 with a prayer to implead them as defendants in the suit. I.A. No. 223 of 2008 was filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C., with a prayer to set aside the ex parte decree dated 17-03-2008. Since there was delay in filing that application, they filed I.A. No. 186 of 2008, under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act, with a prayer to condone the delay of 61 days. The petitioners opposed these applications. Through common order dated 12-08-2008, the trial Court allowed the applications. These two revisions are filed against the orders in I.A. Nos. 222 and 223 of 2008, respectively. 4. Sri R. Chandrasekhar Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that, in case the respondents have rights, vis-a-vis any property, they have to work out the remedies by filing suits, or instituting proceedings. He contends that the trial Court was not at all justified in impleading the respondents 1 and 2, or setting aside the ex parte decree. 5. Sri N. Subba Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioners have grossly misused the process of Court in filing the suit and obtaining an ex parte decree. He contends that though an innocuous prayer was made for declaration, that they are the legal heirs of one, Mr. Rasiya, the petitioners started pressing that decree into service, before the various authorities under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act (for short 'the Act;) 6. The prayer made by the respondents (sic. petitioners) in their suit is for, (i) 'Declaring the plaintiffs that they are the sole and surviving legal heirs of Late Sri V. Rashya Naik, alias Rasiya, s/o. Puriya @ Poniya Lambada; (ii) granting costs of the suit; and (iii) and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 7. From this, it becomes clear that they prayed for a mere declaratory relief. It is relevant to mention that, neither any schedule was attached to the plaint, nor any individual was cited as defendant. It was not a petition under the Indian Succession Act. It is just unundestrandable as to how the trial court numbered the suit, though no defendants were shown in it. In para 5 of the plaint, the petitioners clearly stated that the necessity for them to file the suit has arisen on account of the fact that their claim was not being accepted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Chevalla, in respect of the lands held by Rasiya. It was also mentioned that Rasiya left an estate. In this background the petitioners were under obligation to mention the particulars of the estate, as regards which, the succession was claimed, and to implead the individuals or officials, who disputed their right to succeed to the estate of late Rasiya. On both the counts, the plaint was silent. 8. The suit was notionally valued at Rs. 3,000/-, and the trial Court has generously accepted that, without any further verification. Assuming that the suit was not defective, either as regards the mentioning the property, or as to the presence of the parties against whom the relief is claimed, a serious legal infirmity was glaring on the face of it. The petitioners did not claim any relief ancillary or subsidiary to the one, of declaration. Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act reads as under: Discretion of Court as to declaration of status or right.- Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the Court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the
plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief:Provided that no Court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so. 9. From a perusal of the proviso, it becomes clear that no Court shall grant the mere relief of declaration, if the plaintiff, being in a position to claim other relief; did not pray for it. Even a vague idea about this provision would have persuaded the trial Court, to refuse numbering of the suit. As pointed out at the threshold, the sky rocketing of prices of land has manifested its effect in various fields, including the approach of the Courts, in deviation of the settled norms. 10. Had the petitioners been satisfied with the decree and did not claim any rights, vis-a-vis any property, nobody would have felt aggrieved by that. The record discloses that the petitioners pressed the decree, in the suit, into service, in the various proceedings under the provisions of the Act. The respondents naturally felt aggrieved by this ex parte decree, and they approached the trial Court with proper applications. At least, at a belated stage, the trial Court realized the mistake committed by it earlier, and ordered the interlocutory applications filed by the respondents. The petitioners cannot be said to have suffered any detriment on account of the orders. The maximum that can now happen is that, the decree, that was obtained by the petitioners by resorting to procedure, not recognized by law would be set aside, and proper adjudication, with reference to the relevant provisions of law, would take place. 11. It is hoped that the Civil Courts, particularity in the districts, where the value of the land has increased substantially, in the recent past, would evince required amount of interest and attention before the suits filed in respect of the immovable properties are numbered, lest, the innocent citizens become victims of the ingenious methods resorted to, by vested interests. 12. The revisions are accordingly dismissed. Before proceeding with the suit further, the trial Court shall satisfy itself, as to whether the suit accords with the relevant provisions of law. 13. There shall be no order as to costs.