Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
GOUTAM BHADURI, DEEPAK KUMAR TIWARI, JJ.
Mehul Kumar Patel, S/o. Late Laxman Bhai Patel and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Rishikesh Gupta, S/o. Late Suryaprakash Gupta and Ors. – Respondents
FA No. 16 Of 2023
Decided On : 10-11-2023
Fraud - Civil Suit - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11, Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - [Order 7 Rule 11 (d)] - [Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882] - The court discussed the validity of a compromise decree obtained by fraud, the application of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, and the principle of finality of litigation in cases involving fraud. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the parties to appear for further proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs purchased land from Chandra Prakash Gupta and later challenged a compromise decree obtained by fraud. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs were aware of the pending civil suit and the sale of the property, and therefore, should not be allowed to challenge the compromise decree.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs were not party to the earlier suit and that the trial court had ignored the effect of the property purchase on the compromise decree. The court held that the compromise decree was obtained by collusion and suppression of facts, and therefore, set aside the impugned order.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of a compromise decree obtained by fraud, the application of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, and the principle of finality of litigation in cases involving fraud.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the principle of finality of litigation cannot be used as an engine of fraud and that a person with a case based on falsehood has no right to approach the court. The court also emphasized that the bar contained in Rule 3A will not come in the way of examining the validity of a compromise decree when allegations of fraud/collusion are made.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the parties were directed to appear before the trial court for further proceedings.
JUDGMENT :
(Goutam Bhaduri, J.) :
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 21-9-2022 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Durg, in civil suit No.18-A/ 2020 whereby the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs has been dismissed by invoking power under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the CPC’) and has been non-suited.
2. (i) The facts of the case, as pleaded by the appellants/plaintiffs, in brief, are that the respondents are related to each other. Kanhaiyalal had three sons namely; Makhanlal, Bharatlal & Tirathlal. Makhanlal had six children i.e. three sons namely; Suryaprakash, Chandraprakash & Om Prakash and three daughters namely; Ratna Prabha, Shashi Prabha & Sneha Prabha. Respondent No.1 herein namely; Rishikesh Gupta is the son of Suryaprakash Gupta. For the sake of convenience, the genealogical tree of the descendants of Makhanlal, as impleaded in the cause title of civil suit No.7-A/2004 is as under :
(ii) As per the plaint averments, plaintiffs purchased the suit land bearing khasra No.995/11 and 995/12 (original part of khasra No.995/1) by sale deeds dated 4-12-1993, 4-12-1993. 30-12-1993 from Chandraprakash Gupta for himself and through the power of attorney for Anjani Agrawal, Amresh Agrawal, Smt. Sneha Prabha, Ravi Agrawal, Prashant Agrawal and Pradeep Choubey.
(iii) It was stated that the land was wrongly entered in the revenue records of the State Government. Therefore, a suit was filed by Makhanlal Gupta. According to the plaintiffs (Appellants herein), during pendency of the above suit, a registered partition deed was effected in between Makhanlal and his sons namely; Suryaprakash, Chandraprakash & Om Prakash in the year 1982. The plaintiff further pleaded that the mutual partition also took place amongst them, which was earlier excluded from the registered partition deed for the reason that the said land is recorded in the name of the State Government.
(iv) After decision of the High Court in the case bearing No.726/1978 decided in the year 1984, the revenue records were corrected by order dated 26-9-1988 passed by the Nazul Officer, Durg, in revenue case No.3A/20(3) year 1985-86. According to the plaintiff before the Nazaul Officer acknowledgment of partition was placed by the parties whereby the share of Chandra Prakash was also apportioned. After purchase of land in the year 1993 from Chandraprakash by three separate sale deeds, the plaintiffs became the absolute owner of the said land and the physical possession was also delivered to the plaintiffs herein.
(v) The respondent No.1 Rishikesh Gupta initially filed a suit on 19-7-1990 bearing No.7-A/2004 (re-numbered) for partition through his paternal grandfather Ramkrishna Agrawal, as he was then minor. The detailed description of the properties was given in schedule ‘A’, ‘B’ & ‘C’. Ramkrishna Agrawal, who filed the said suit on behalf of Rishikesh, died during pendency of the same. With the passage of time, Rishikesh became major and appeared in person to prosecute the suit.
(vi) Rishikesh filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC on 11-1-2005 to implead the appellant herein as a party in the said civil suit, which was dismissed by the learned First Additional District Judge by order dated 21-2-2005. The said dismissal order was subject of challenge in WP No.1447 of 2005 wherein this Court initially passed an order dated 8-4-2005 and the notice was issued to the respondents on merit. Paras 6 to 11 are quoted below :
7) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit for partition was filed in the year 1990 by the next friend on behalf of plaintiff who at that time was minor. During pendency of the suit the next friend di
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the principle of finality of litigation cannot be used to perpetrate fraud, and a compromise decree obtained by collusion and suppression of f....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a compromise deed, once recorded by the court, is lawful and binding, and a subsequent suit challenging the compromise decree is not maintaina....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that no suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful, as per the provisions o....
(1) Compromise of suit – For a valid compromise in a suit there has to be a lawful agreement or compromise in writing and signed by parties which would then require it to be proved to satisfaction of....
The bar under Order XXIII Rule 3A of the CPC does not apply to a stranger to the compromise, and the plea of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law to be determined after evidence has been le....
A consent decree requires valid documentation for ownership claims; mere Power of Attorney is insufficient, and allegations of fraud must be substantiated to set aside court decisions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
