1. Suit for declaration of ownership by adverse possession — Consent decree — Subsequent challenge as fraudulent. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2001 Supreme(SC) 1008
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.N.Agrawal : V.N.Khare
Bachan Singh
Versus
Kartar Singh
Case No. : 9991 of 1995
Date of Decision : 7/31/01
Important Points
A consent decree passed by the court is not required to be registered under the Indian Registration Act, and a party who admits a claim and allows a decree to become final cannot later challenge it through a separate suit for declaration based on fraud.
Subject
Civil Law - Property Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Civil Procedure Code - Consent Decree - Registration - A consent decree passed by the court is not required to be registered under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. (Para 2)
(B) Evidence Act - Section 44 - Fraud - A decree obtained by fraud can be avoided, but where a party had admitted the claim in a previous suit and the decree attained finality, the party cannot subsequently seek to avoid it on grounds of fraud without having filed an appeal or an application to set aside the decree in the appropriate manner. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
A party filed a suit for declaration of ownership based on adverse possession, alleging payment of a sum of money and agreement to correct records. The opposite party admitted the claim in a written statement, leading to the trial court to decree the suit. No appeal was filed against this decree. Subsequently, the party who admitted the claim filed a suit for declaration that the previous decree was void and a nullity due to fraud. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court allowed the appeal, reasoning that the decree was effectively a sale to circumvent the Indian Registration Act. The High Court subsequently set aside the first appellate court's judgment.
Findings of Court:
The court found that since the claim had been admitted by the party in the first suit, and no appeal or application to set aside the decree was filed, the decree attained finality. The view that the decree required registration as it was a sale is legally incorrect as a consent decree does not require registration.
Issues: The main issues were whether the decree obtained by fraud was void and whether a consent decree passed by the court requires registration under the Indian Registration Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a consent decree does not require registration under the Indian Registration Act. Furthermore, a party who admits a claim in a suit and allows a decree to become final without appealing or appealing via a application to set aside it, cannot later claim the decree is void due to fraud through a separate suit for declaration.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
(B) Evidence Act - Section 44 - Fraud - A decree obtained by fraud can be avoided, but where a party had admitted the claim in a previous suit and the decree attained finality, the party cannot subsequently seek to avoid it on grounds of fraud without having filed an appeal or an application to set aside the decree in the appropriate manner. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
A party filed a suit for declaration of ownership based on adverse possession, alleging payment of a sum of money and agreement to correct records. The opposite party admitted the claim in a written statement, leading to the trial court to decree the suit. No appeal was filed against this decree. Subsequently, the party who admitted the claim filed a suit for declaration that the previous decree was void and a nullity due to fraud. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court allowed the appeal, reasoning that the decree was effectively a sale to circumvent the Indian Registration Act. The High Court subsequently set aside the first appellate court's judgment.
Findings of Court:
The court found that since the claim had been admitted by the party in the first suit, and no appeal or application to set aside the decree was filed, the decree attained finality. The view that the decree required registration as it was a sale is legally incorrect as a consent decree does not require registration.
Issues: The main issues were whether the decree obtained by fraud was void and whether a consent decree passed by the court requires registration under the Indian Registration Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a consent decree does not require registration under the Indian Registration Act. Furthermore, a party who admits a claim in a suit and allows a decree to become final without appealing or appealing via a application to set aside it, cannot later claim the decree is void due to fraud through a separate suit for declaration.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant argued decree void for fraud, could be avoided under Section 44, Evidence Act. (Para 2 )
3. The first appellate court erred in setting aside consent decree on ground of non-registration; consent decree need not be registered. (Para 2 )
4. A consent decree is not required to be registered under the Indian Registration Act. (Para 2 )
5. Appeal dismissed; judgment of High Court upheld. (Para 3 )
6. Is a consent decree required to be registered under the Indian Registration Act?
No, a consent decree is not required to be registered under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. (Para 2 )
7. Can a decree allegedly obtained by fraud be challenged under Section 44 of the Evidence Act?
The court found no merit in the argument, noting the appellant had alternative remedies of appeal or application to set aside the decree. (Para 2 )
JUDGMENT
V.N.KHARE, J.
(1) EARLIER defendant-respondents herein brought suit no. 1365/81 for declaration that they have become owners of the land on the basis of adverse possession. In para 5 of the plaint, it was averred that the defendants in the suit were paid a sum of Rs. 1,98,000.00 in equal share. The defendants also agreed to get the necessary correction made in the record in favour of the plaintiff with regard to the suit land, but they have now refused to admit the claim of the plaintiff. A written statement was filed by the plaintiff-appellant herein, who was the defendant in suit no. 1365/81 wherein the claim of the plaintiff in the said suit was admitted. On the basis of the said admission, the suit was decreed by the trial court on 13.11.81. It is also admitted between the parties that neither any appeal was preferred against the judgment of the trial court nor any application to set aside the decree was filed by the defendant in the said suit and the decree has attained finality. Subsequently, in the year 1982, the plaintiff-appellant herein, brought a suit for declaration that decree passed in suit no. 1365/81 was void and nullity on the ground that it was obtained by fraud. The trial court dismissed the suit. However, on appeal, the first appellate court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff-appellant on 30/7/87. Against the said judgment, the defendants preferred a second appeal. The High Court allowed the second appeal and set aside the judgment and order of the first appellate court. It is against the said judgment, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
(2) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant urged that the decree passed in suit no. 1365/81 was void, having obtained by fraud and, therefore, it could be avoided under section 44 of the Evidence Act. We do not find any merit in the argument. It may be stated that the plaintiff was the defendant in the suit no.1365/81 filed by the respondents. In the said suit, the claim of the respondents was admitted by the present plaintiff-appellant and on the basis of the said admission, the suit was decreed. In case the present appellant was not satisfied with the decree, either he could have filed an appeal or moved an application for setting aside the decree alleged to have been obtained by fraud. Before the first appellate court, the plaintiff-appellant stated that there was no fraud in passing the decree in suit no. 1365/81, but the appellate court set aside the decree of the trial court on the ground that the decree was a sale only to overcome the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. This view of the appellate court was not correct. A consent decree passed by the court is not required to be registered under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act and, therefore, the view taken by the first appellate court was not legally correct and has been rightly set aside by the High Court. We are, therefore, in agreement with the view taken by the High Court.
(3) CONSEQUENTLY, this appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
