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.

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J.

I.A. 17698/2022 (U/O XXIII Rule 3 r/w Section 151 of CPC, 1908)

1. An application has been filed by Asha Sharma, wife of Defendant Ashok Kumar Sharma under Order XXIII Rule 3(sic) read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the CPC) to set aside the Judgement dated 12-12-2011 on the ground that a conspiracy was hatched by the parties to the suit by practicing fraud and concealment of material facts with an object to deprive the applicant of her due share in the suit properties.

2. It is stated in the application that Shri Ram Sharma filed the Civil Suit against his father, Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma (Defendant no. 1), brother-Shri Shyam Sharma (Defendant no. 2), sister-Anuradha Sharma (Defendant no. 3) seeking Declaration, Mandatory Injunction and Partition of the movable/immovable properties. The Defendants opposed the claims in their written statement filed by them, which was controverted by Plaintiff in his replication.

3. During the pendency of the suit, the matter was referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, where a settlement was effected between the parties vide Mediation Settlement dated 24th November 2011. In terms of this settlement, the suit was disposed of by this Court vide Judgment dated 12th December 2011 with the direction, "Accordingly, present suit is decreed in terms of Exhibit C-1 leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Let a decree sheet be drawn up accordingly. No order as to costs."

4. It is averred in the application that the Judgement/Decree dated 12th December 2011 is an outcome of fraud and collusion of the parties to the suit with the object to grab the share of the Applicant in the property bearing number RZ-F1/3A, Nasirpur Road, Mahavir Enclave, Palam, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the suit property), which according to the application is jointly owned by Defendant No.1and the Applicant. The property was originally owned by Devki Nandan Sharma, the father of Defendant No.1 and after the death of Devki Nandan Sharma, the property was inherited by Defendant No.1 as the absolute owner.

5. The applicant has claimed that Defendant No.1 had transferred an area measuring about 168 square yards out of the total area of 268 square yards in the suit property and to claim ownership of the said part of the property the applicant has annexed transfer documents such as Agreement to Sell, Power of Attorney, Receipt, Will, Affidavit Possession Letter etc. Based on these documents, the applicant claims to be the absolute owner of an area measuring about 168 sq. yards in the suit property along with two adjacent shops.

6. It is averred in the application that in March, 2022, the Applicant came to know that an application has been filed by the Plaintiff in relation to the suit property, pursuant to which she came to know that the Plaintiff and the Defendants are in collusion and had obtained a fraudulent decree from this court without informing the applicant who is the co-owner of the suit property. A Prayer is, therefore made that the Judgement/Decree dated 12th December 2011be set aside.

7. Submissions heard.

8. The factual background is that the present suit was instituted by Sh. Ram Sharma, son of the applicant against Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma, husband of the applicant, Sh. Shyam Sharma, son of the applicant Anuradha Sharma, daughter of the applicant, claiming Partition of the Scheduled Properties and the Declaration of the Scheduled Properties as Join