Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 675
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUBRAMANIAN, J.
Anthoniyammal & Others – Appellants
Versus
Anbalagan & Others – Respondents
S.A. No. 412 of 2020 & CMP. No. 8413 of 2020
Decided on : 13-08-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :R. Siddharth, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Y.T. Aravind Gosh, Government Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that fraudulent acquisition of property, suppression of material facts, and obtaining decrees by playing fraud on the court will lead to the dismissal of the appeal.
Headnote:
Fraud - Property Dispute - WP.No.4409/1990, S.A.No.565/2010, O.S.No.233/2014 - The judgment discusses the fraudulent acquisition of property through manipulation of government officials, suppression of material facts, and obtaining exparte decrees. The court found the appellants guilty of playing fraud on the court and dismissed the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking cancellation of a decree and patta granted to the defendants for a property that was the subject of multiple legal proceedings and government orders. The plaintiff alleged fraudulent acquisition of the property by the defendants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the defendants guilty of suppression of material facts and obtaining the decree by playing fraud on the court. The court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the lower courts.
Issues: The main issue was the fraudulent acquisition of the property by the defendants, suppression of material facts, and obtaining exparte decrees.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding that the appellants were guilty of playing fraud on the court, which led to the dismissal of the appeal.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and decree of the lower courts were confirmed.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Cr.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 26.08.2019 in A.S.No.40 of 2018 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Court, Cuddalore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 12.10.2017 in O.S.No.113 of 2016 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Cuddalore.)
1. The above second appeal is at the instance of the defendants in O.S.No. 113 of 2016. The suit was filed by the first respondent/plaintiff seeking cancellation of the decree in O.S.No.233/2014 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Cuddalore and for costs.
2. The factual background which gave raise to this litigation is as follows:
*The property is the subject matter of the suit measuring about 1.88.0 hectares, classified as Government auctionable dry lands was sold in an auction to the first respondent/first defendant on 20.03.1982 for a sum of Rs.700/-. Before the confirmation of the auction, one Pappu, daughter of Susai made an application for re-auction offering Rs.3,150/- for the said land. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chidambaram, by an order dated 20.09.1983 directed reauction to be conducted. Upon the said order, Pappu deposited a sum of Rs,3,150/-, but no re-auction was held. While things stood thus, on 22.03.1988, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chidambaram, confirmed the auction in favour of the first appellant. This order of confirmation was challenged by Pappu, who had offered to pay more for the property. In the appeal by Pappu, the District Revenue Officer, Cuddalore, by order dated 08.03.1990, cancelled the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chidambaram, dated 22.03.1988 and directed re-auction. Challenging the order directing re-auction dated 08.03.1990, the first appellant filed a writ petition in WP.No.4409/1990 before this Court. This Court, by an order dated 14.09.1998, dismissed the writ petition, confirming the order directing the re-auction.
* A Review Application in Rev.Appl.No.8/2000 was filed by Pappu against the order in writ petition and the same was also dismissed on 21.07.2000. Despite that, there was no re-auction. Suppressing the order in W.P.No.4409/1990, the first appellant filed a suit in O.S.No.45/2006 before Sub Court, Chidambaram, against the District Collector, Cuddalore and others. Even during the pendency of the said suit, the Tahsildar, Kattumannarkoil, by an order dated 29.03.2007, ignoring the order of this Court in W.P.No:4409 of 1998, confirmed the auction in favour of the first appellant and also directed mutation of the revenue records. In view the said development the first appellant withdrew the suit in O.S.No.45/2006 and the same was dismissed as not pressed.
* Subsequently, Pappu, daughter of Susai, who had offered a sum of Rs.3,150/- for the property in the year 1982, made an application for cancellation of patta granted in favour of the first appellant, and for taking action as per the order of this Court directing re-auction in WP.No.4409/1990. In the said application, the Tahsildar, Kattumannarkoil, cancelled the patta and directed re-auction by an order dated 22.11.2007.
* Thereafter, the first appellant filed a suit in O.S.No.267/2010 against the plaintiff seeking an order of injunction. That suit came to be dismissed on 26.06.2012 and in the said judgment, the Court has pointed out that the plaintiff is guilty of suppression of material facts.
* Again the Sub Collector, Chidambaram passed on order on 24.02.2014, on the petition filed by Pappu seeking cancellation of patta, rejecting her claim and holding that the auction in favour of the first appellant need not be canceled. In the said order, the Sub Collector had referred to the proceedings taken by Pappu before the Civil Court, which ended in S.A.No.565/2010. Nowhere in the said proceedings the Court had acknowledged the title of the appellants herein. The rejection of the claim of Pappu was alone was confirmed by this Court in S.A.No.565/2010.
* Thereafter, challenging the ord
