Fraud vitiates all judicial acts; judgments obtained by fraud are null and void, as established in the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

JUDGMENT :

NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS, J.

1. This is defendant’s first appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2017 passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Raigarh, District-Raigarh (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 16-A/2012 (Munni Devi Vs. Ganga Devi & others) by which the suit filed by the plaintiff has been decreed by declaring the order passed by the revenue authorities as null and void.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status shown in Civil Suit No. 16-A/2012 before the trial Court.

3. Brief facts as reflected from plaint averments are that:-

(A) The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title, possession, canceling the agreement dated 05.05.2003 executed between sister of plaintiff-Munni Devi namely Gangadevi and Mukesh Kumar S/o Om Prakash Agrawal and mutation order dated 06.05.2003 passed by Tahsildar in favour of Mukesh Agrawal as well as the appellate order dated 22.10.2007 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Raigarh, as null & void with regard to property i.e. dilapidated house constructed over Khasra No. 8/6 area 4 dismill situated at Baikunthpur, Ward No. 22 Old Raigarh (hereafter referred to as “the suit property”) mainly contending that one Surajbhan filed a suit on 07.04.1971 which is registered as Civil Suit No. 74-A/72 before learned Civil Judge Class-II, Raigarh for possession, arrears and damages which was decreed on 20.10.1973 and in pursuance of the same, Surajbhan has taken possession of the suit property in presence of witnesses and accordingly, the decree was executed and the execution proceeding was dismissed on 03.01.1975. This fact came to the knowledge of the plaintiff on 24.12.2007 when she obtained certified copy of the order on 24.12.2007.

(B) It is also case of the plaintiff that Surajbhan in pursuance of decree dated 20.10.1973, filed an application for mutation and also for correction in revenue record for mutating his name in the registration register and accordingly, at serial No. 278, in records name of Surajbhan was recorded mentioning that it has been purchased for Rs. 2000/- and the same has been purchased from Tiknu. It is also case of the plaintiff that Surajbhan after obtaining of the suit property on 21.10.1974 has executed a sale-deed in favour of Ganga Devi w/o Bhana Ram Sharma & Munni Devi w/o Ram Prakash Agnihotri and half of the share of the suit property has been sold to them and possession has been given and they have also mutated their names in the revenue record. Munni Devi recorded her name in the suit property in the year 1985-86 and Ganga Devi has also recorded her name in the revenue record.

(C) It is also case of the plaintiff that Surajbhan S/o Devi Sai Agrawal has also recorded one dilapidated house i.e. suit property in his name and as per boundary described in the records, in the East side, house of Phoolchand, in the West side, house of Milap Rawat, in the North side, street & in the South side, road, property of Gangadevi w/o Bhana Ram Sharma, R/o Gandhiganj, Raigarh was described which is said to have been purchased through registered sale-deed from Ganga Devi W/o Bhana Ram Sharma i.e. defendant No. 2 who is the sister of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the same was recorded in the office of Deputy Registrar, Stamps at Serial No. 1705/Additional/I/196 which is the suit property.

(D) It is also case of the plaintiff that Ganga Devi/ defendant No. 2 through its registered sale-deed dated 03.12.0981 has got recorded the suit property bearing Khasra No. 8/5 area 0.032 Hectare situated at Baikunthpur, Raigarh, in her name. It is also case