Court held collusive suits are a fraud upon the court.

A person who is not a party to the suit, but who is aggrieved by the decree, has come to this Court, under Art.227 of the Constitution of India, alleging fraud and collusion in obtaining the decree.

2. Second respondent was the owner of the suit property. He executed a power of attorney in favour of first respondent, who filed O.S.7631 of 1997, on the file of XV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, on 11. 1997. On 11. 1997, the principal (second respondent), who had executed the power of attorney, made an endorsement on the plaint that he has no objection for passing of a decree. The suit was decreed as prayed for. The decree reads thus:

“(1) That it be and is hereby declared that the General power duly executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, dated 29. 1997 duly registered at the Office of Sub Registrar, Purasawalkam, as Document No.575 of 1997 is, valid acted upon, irrevocable, etc.

(2) That the defendant be and is hereby restrained by permanent injunction from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of all the piece of land in all measuring 12 acres and 5 cents comprised in various Survey Nos.namely, 331/2,336/ 2, 336/1B and 333/2 situated at Village 56, Kolapakkam, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Chengai M.G.R. District and within the Sub Registration District of Pammal and within the Registration District of Madras South in any manner either by himself, his workers, agents, representatives, assigns, etc.

(3) That the defendant do pay plaintiff a sum of Rs.61 (Rupees Sixty-one only) towards the cost of this suit as taxed and noted below.”

3. If the decree is only against the defendant in the suit, I would not have interfered with the matter. The relevant facts which necessitated the filing of the revision petition must be summarised, and then only it could be understood whether there was fraud in obtaining the decree.

.4. As stated earlier, the properties belonged to the second respondent long back in 1983. The then power of attorney-holder, sold the properties by registered sale deeds, in favour of Rajeswari Ammal of Shanmugha Naicker, D.Rajendran son of Dhakshnamoorthi. Second respondent had appointed one Munuswamy alias P.M.Swamy as his power of attorney at that time. After the purchasers came into possession, the properties were sold to the petitioners herein, for valuable consideration.

5. Admitting the possession of the petitioners, and seeking recovery from them, a legal notice was issued by second respondent himself on 14. 1997. One Mr.A.Palani, Advocate, has issued the notice. It is stated therein that the petitioners are illegally occupying the lands mentioned therein, including brick industries and, therefore, he wanted the petitioners to deliver vacant possession of the same to his client. He has said that their value is more than 12 1/2 lakhs of rupees. He also sought for recovery of damage of Rs.10,00,000. In that notice, second respondent wanted immediate handing over of possession of the properties, failing which, it is said therein that he will initiate legal proceedings against the petitioners, for recovery of the property.

.6. A detailed reply was sent on 5. 1997 explaining as to how the petitioners are interested in the properties, and how they came into possession. It was stated in that reply that the second respondent has no right over the same, and that he has already disposed of the same through his power of attorney, and the same was subsequently ratified by him. After sending a notice and reply, second respondent executed a power of attorney in favour of the first respondent on 29. 1997. On the basis of that Power of Attorney, first respondent filed the above suit against the second respondent, i.e., agent filed the suit against the principal, on 11. 1997, for declaration and permanent injunction. The suit was decreed on the basis of the endorsement made by the second respondent on 11. 1997, by advancing the suit to that date. After getting a decree on 11. 19