The defendant is the appellant. The suit is filed by the respondent for declaration that the appellant is not entitled to execute the decree in O.S. No. 4439 of 1975, dated 23.1.1978 on the file of the Sixth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, as it is null and void and vitiated by fraud and collusion and not binding on him. The respondent also prays for a consequential injunction restraining the appellant from executing the decree against him.

2. The facts leading to the suit are as follows:—

The appellant is the owner of the suit property. The appellant let out the same to one T.P. Ramanathan. It filed a suit O.S. No. 4439 of 1975 on the file of the with Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, for evicting the said Ramanathan from the suit premises. The latter filed a written statement contesting the claim of the appellant and the maintainability of the suit. The contention raised by the defendant in the earlier suit was that the suit was not maintainable in the civil court. But later, he remained ex parte and a decree was passed in favour of the appellant herein on the basis of the evidence adduced by the appellant. When the decree was sought to be executed by