Back
1917 Supreme(SC) 18
Privy Council
Ameer Ali, Bart , Sir Walter Phillimore, Parmoor, Parker , Justice Lords Buckmaster, JJ.
Madhu Sudan Chowdhri and others -Appellant
Versus
Mst. Chandrabati Chowdhri and others -Resopndent
Decided On : 20-03-1917
Lee , Adkin, Sanderson, Nevill, Rogers , Barrow, T.L. Wilson and Co., B. Dube, Eddis, A.M. Dunne
The fraudulent submission of fabricated evidence to prove the regularity of a court-ordered sale undermines the entire case of the party presenting such evidence, justifying the setting aside of the sale.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code - Sections 274, 287, 289 and 291 - Execution of decree - Sale of property - Service of sale proclamations - Fraudulent evidence - Where evidence produced to prove the regularity of sale proceedings is found to be fabricated, the entire case of the party relying on such evidence is undermined. If documents produced as proof of service of proclamations show no signs of exposure to weather, it leads to the conclusion that they were never affixed, rendering the testimony supporting them as a series of connected falsehoods. (Paras 5, 6)
(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Findings of fact - Where a court of appeal has examined physical evidence and found it to be fraudulent, a higher appellate court is bound to accept such findings, especially when the physical evidence is no longer available for inspection and the conduct of the party's legal representative during the hearing supports the finding of fraud. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
A sale of a one-fifth share in various properties was conducted to satisfy decrees. The purchasers of the property sought to maintain the sale, while the decree-holders petitioned to set it aside, alleging that sale proclamations were not served on all properties and that the sale was concluded at a price far below the real value due to collusion. The trial court initially upheld the sale, relying on the testimony of a process server and the production of nine sale proclamations. However, the High Court reversed this decision after observing that the produced proclamations bore no signs of exposure to sun or rain, concluding they had never been exhibited. The matter subsequently reached the higher appellate court.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the evidence regarding the service of proclamations was a series of connected falsehoods carefully prepared to mislead the court. The fraudulent nature of the documents destroyed the entire fabric of the story put forward by the purchasers to support the regularity of the sale.
Issues: Whether the sale of the property should be set aside on the grounds that the mandatory sale proclamations were not served and that the evidence produced to prove such service was fraudulent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the fraudulent suppression of sale proclamations and the subsequent submission of fabricated documents to prove their service is sufficient to set aside a sale. When a lower court has had the opportunity to examine physical evidence and finds it to be fraudulent, that finding is entitled to weight, particularly when the party's own counsel is unable to oppose the plea to set aside the sale upon being confronted with the evidence.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
practice and procedure
-
civil procedure
-
execution of decrees
- sale of property
- service of notice
-
execution of decrees
-
evidence
- fraud
- official acts
-
civil procedure
Lord Buckmaster:-
The difficulties with which their Lordships are confronted in this case are not connected with any question of law, nor do they arise from the recorded evidence of the witnesses. They are associated with inferences drawn from documents which are not before the Board and from circumstances attending the hearing before the High Court which it is now impossible to reproduce. Their dispute entirely depends upon certain questions of fact. These questions were all answered by the District Judge, who heard the case in the first instance, in favour of the appellants; and, but for the circumstances to which allusion has been made, it would have been difficult for the respondents to convince their Lordships that they should support the reasoning of the High Court by whom this judgment was overruled.
The history of this litigation extends for more than half a century. It appears that on the 22nd May 1872, two ladies, whose names appear as the first two respondents to this appeal, though one has recently died, obtained a decree in the Privy Council against one Fateh Narayan Choudhri for a sum which now exceeds 90,000 rupees. The proceedings, which were temporarily concluded by this judgment, are said to have been commenced on the 20th April, 1859. On the 18th March 1887, and the 24th August 1888, the third respondent to this appeal who is the Maharaja Rameshwar Singh Bahadur, obtained two decrees from the Court of the District Judge of Mozufferpore and from the High Court of Calcutta respectively against the respondents. The amounts due under such judgments are said to he 21,855 rupees. The said Fateh Narayan was entitled to an undivided one-fifth share in seventy-one properties in forty-five villages, and the first two respondents endeavoured to execute their decree by attachment and sale of the said share. Fateh Narayan, however, denied that be possessed any such interest and it became necessary to institute proceedings to establish that this right existed. These proceedings were ultimately decided by the High Court of Calcutta on the 30th August 1898 in favour of the first two respondents. But the difficulties of these two ladies were not thereby ended, for the third respondent — the Maharaja — attached under his decrees their rights against the said, Fateh Narayan and, on the 1st May 1909,applied that the said one-fifth share of the judgment-debtor Fateh Narayan in the said properties should be sold.
It is alleged that in these proceedings the usual notices were issued and the sale proclamations were served, the date of the sale being fixed for the 15th September 1900. This execution was, however, stayed on the application of the two first respondents, who claimed that these decrees of the Maharaja were barred by the Statute of Limitations. This claim was ultimately rejected, but fresh proclamations became necessary under S. 291 of the Civil Procedure Code, and it is these proceedings that have given rise to the dispute out of which the present appeal proceeds.
The sale of one-fifth of a considerable portion of the properties was in fact effected on the 17th June 1901, and nearly the whole of the property was purchased by the appellants, no other intending purchasers being present at the sale — the aggregate price for the whole being 12,115 rupees. On the 17th July 1901, a petition was presented by the first two respondents seeking to set the sale aside, based upon many allegations the most material for the purpose of the present appeal being that the sale proclamation was not served on all the Mouzahs, that the return of service filed in the Court was filed in collusion with the purchasers, the present appellants, and that the sale was accordingly concluded at a price far below the real value a result induced by the collusion of the processerver with the present appellants, who were co-sharers of the judgment-debtor in the property sold. This petition was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge on the 11th March 1904. In th
