Ground for vacating an earlier judgment.

These appeals arise out of the same judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Ramanathapuram, at Madurai, in a suit instituted by the appellant in A.S.No. 28 of 1962, for declaration of its title to the suit properties and for an injunction restraining the first defendant from executing the decree obtained by her (the first defendant who is the appellant in the other appeal A.S. No. 178 of 1962) in O.S.No. 16 of 1949 or in the alternative to set aside the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 3 of 1958, both on the file of the same Subordinate Judge. The appellant in A.S. No. 28 of 1962 is a limited liability company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, on 12th July, 1948, with its registered office at Rajapalayam. Two of its promoters, one of them the 2nd defendant in the suit and the other by name Ayyadurai alias Madaswamy Moopanar, purchased the suit lands under two registered sale deeds dated 17th June and 18th June, 1945, for a total consideration of Rs. 11,009 from one Ramaswami Raja and Rangammal. In O.S. No. 16 of 1940, the 1st defendant obtained a decree against defendants 2 and 3 for a sum of Rs. 10,000 due under a promissory note that had been executed by them. Admittedly, the loan was obtained by the promissors for their personal purposes. In execution of the decree, the first defendant attached the suit properties and brought them to sale in E.P. No. 60 of 1955. An application of the second defendant representing the company in E.A. No. 301 of 1956 under Order 21, rule 58, Civil Procedure Code, was dismissed on 29th October, 1957 and thereafter he instituted in his capacity as managing director of Jayam and Co., the managing agents of the company, O.S. No. 3 of 1958 toset aside the order in E.A. No. 301 of 1956, but without success. No appeal was filed from the decree in O.S. No. 3 of 1958. By resolutions dated 27th July, 1959, the second defendant was removed from the managing directorship of Jayam and Co., and of the plaintiff-company and one A.M. Chinna Guruswami Moopanar was appointed in his place. The present suit out of which the appeals arise has been instituted by the company through its managing agent Jayam and Co., Ltd., represented by its managing director Chinna Guruswami Moopanar. The plaintiff’s case is that the suit properties were purchased by the second defendant and Ayyadurai alias Madasami Moopanar as representatives and on behalf of Rajapalayam Weavers Mills which was to be incorporated later and that on its incorporation the Municipal registry of the properties stood in the name of the company and it has been paying the Municipal tax therefor. According to the plaintiff, nevertheless defendants 2 and 3 colluded with the first defendant and allowed the application under Order 21, rule 58, Civil Procedure Code and O.S. No. 3 of 1958 to be dismissed and thus fraudulently allowed the properties to be attached and brought to sale in discharge of their own personal debts. On those averments, the plaintiff-company sought the reliefs mentioned by us at the outset. It claimed that the suit properties belonged to the company, that this position had been accepted on all hands and buildings for the purpose of the company has since been erected before the attachment and that though the company was eo nomine a party to the claim application and the suit, as the interests of the company were not properly placed and represented before the Court on account of the collusion between the defendants and their fraudulent conduct, the decree in O.S.No. 3 of 1958 was null and void and was not binding on the plaintiff.

The first two defendants filed separate written statements while the third defendant remained ex aparte. The first defendant denied any collusion or fraudulent conduct on her part and asserted that the properties belonged to the second defendant and that ever since their purchase, they had been in the possession and enjoyment of the second defendant himself. The first defen