The main legal point established in the judgment is that a decree passed by a court having inherent administration, even with errors, is not a nullity and must be respected by the parties and the executing court.

This Revision is directed against the fair and decreetal order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Udhagamandalam in E.A.No.37/2008 in E.P.No.48 of 2007 in O.S.No.115/1999. The petitioner/ judgment debtor before the lower court is the petitioner herein and the respondent/decree holder is the respondent in this revision.

2. Thebrief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the revision would be as follows:

The petitioner who was a judgment debtor in O.S.No.115/1999 dated 110. 2004, had preferred an appeal in A.S.No.6/2005 before the learned District Judge, Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam, and the said appeal was dismissed by the said court confirming the judgment and decree passed by the lower court and the said suit was originally filed by the respondent as plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement said to have been entered into between the respondent and the petitioner for selling the property belonging to the petitioner for consideration mentioned there in and for return of money in alternative to the plaintiff and the said suit was decreed for alternative relief of return of money by the plaintiff disallowing the claim of specific performance. The First Appellate court had also confirmed the said judgment and decree and had rejected the specific performance as asked for by the respondent as plaintiff. While coming to the conclusion that the respondent plaintiff was not entitled to specific performance and decree it has been categorically found that by there was no privity of contract in between petitioner/judgment debtor and the respondent decree holder. The trial court had not considered the plea of the petitioner that a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-was borrowed by the petitioner/judgment debtor from one Anwar for the purpose of her daughters marrige in the year 1999 and the said Anwar obtained signatures in blank papers and thereafter set up his brother the respondent (plaintiff) as agreement holder and created agreement of sale in respect of the suit property.

3. However the partial decree was passed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff who is a stranger to the actual transaction which would be void-ab-initio. Therefore, the said decree cannot be enforced by the the decree holder against the petitioner.

4. Learned District Judge had also confirmed the judgment and decree of the lower court on the appeal preferred by the plaintiff. No second appeal was preferred by the respondent/decree holder against the said decision. In view of the reason that the trial court had not discussed the plea of the petitioner as aforesaid and the appellate court had also confirmed the said judgment and decree as such the decree passed against the petitioner in favour of the respondent/plaintiff is itself void-ab-initio and inexecutable and therefore the execution petition filed in E.P.No.48/2007 filed for the recovery of the said money cannot also be proceeded and therefore, the execution petition has to be dismissed as the decree passed in O.S.No.115/1999 dated 110. 2004 as confirmed in appeal A.S.No.6/2005 on the file of Learned District Judge, Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam is void-ab-initio and in executable and thus render justice.

5. The respondent contended that the plea of the petitioner/defendant in the said suit was that she borrowed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- and she has not repaid the same to the said Anwar and she did not say that she had discharged the said amount and the alleged transaction was alien to the suit transaction and therefore, the lower court had not considered the said plea and the trial court and the first appellate court had categorically found that a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-had been passed on the basis of the suit agreement and the plaintiff was not entitled to specific performance and therefore he was found entitled to damages by the way of return of the said advance amount with other benefits like interest and costs. The respondent did not prefer any second appeal against the said judgment. Equally t