Fraud vitiates all transactions; unregistered agreements do not confer title or interest in property, and judgments obtained through fraud can be quashed by the High Court under Article 227.

ORDER :

M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the judgment and decree dated 13-03-2015 passed by the XIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No. 8495 of 2014 on the score that they are obtained by fraud and execution proceedings instituted thereon.

2. Fact, in brief, germane are as follows: -

2.1. The petitioner purchases schedule property by way of a registered sale deed on 14-02-1991. Pursuant thereto, she has been put in possession of the property. The subject matter of the property is site bearing No.25, PID No.18-07-25 measuring 40”x60” situated at Ashtagrama House Building Cooperative Society approved layout in Magadi Road, Bengaluru. All the revenue entries thereafter are in the name of the petitioner. It is a vacant land and portion of the schedule property is temporarily being used by Kamakshipalya Traffic Police Station and they are said to have put up asbestos sheet shed measuring 22’6”x31’6” on the schedule property.

2.2. When things stood thus, it appears respondent No.1, a total stranger to the property, files a suit in O.S.No.8495 of 2014 against the 2^nd respondent depicting him to be the power of attorney holder from the hands of the petitioner. The suit was seeking specific performance of sale agreement dated 07-12-1994 and the suit is instituted 20 years thereafter seeking such specific performance. After institution of the suit, the 2^nd respondent and the 1^st respondent enter into a compromise with regard to certain payments to be made and the concerned Court records the compromise and accordingly directs drawing up of the decree. The 1^st respondent institutes execution case bearing Ex.No.1288 of 2015 under Order XXI Rule 11 of the CPC before the concerned Court seeking execution of judgment and decree dated 13-03-2015 passed in O.S.No.8495 of 2014. In the said execution, the petitioner is shown as the power of attorney holder of the 2^nd respondent. Notice reaches the petitioner. It is then, the petitioner comes to know history of the case.

2.3. Therefore, the averment in the petition is that a fraudulent power of attorney is generated by the 2^nd respondent which is of the year 1994 and a suit is filed 20 years thereafter. The suit gets compromised; execution is filed and in the execution case the petitioner comes to know about these proceedings. Thereafter, the petitioner approaches this Court in the subject petition calling in question the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.8495 of 2014 as vitiated by fraud.

3. Heard Sri Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri N.Udaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri N.Shiva Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

4.1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar would vehemently contend that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the property and is in possession even today, as it is a vacant land. The 2^nd respondent is in the habit of instituting frivolous petitions/suits on vacant lands. Concerning the very suit schedule property, a suit in O.S.No.26487 of 2008 is filed by the 2^nd respondent against the petitioner for permanent injunction. In the said suit, notice is said to be served upon the petitioner and an ex-parte decree is obtained.

4.2. The 2^nd respondent describes himself as power of attorney holder of the petitioner and claims title over the suit schedule property by virtue of the said power of attorney. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has never executed any power attorney in her lifetime. This is the ploy of the 2^nd respondent in getting the suit filed by the 1^st respondent and describing himself to be the absolute owner on the strength of power of attorney said to be executed by the petitioner. The moment suit is filed, compromise petition is filed and decree is obtained on the said compromise. Execution case is instituted to execute the decree of compromise and delivery warr