Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
The District Collector, Chennai - Appellant
Versus
R. Vetri & Others - Respondent
Review Application No. 166 of 2021 in WP. No. 15507 of 2021
Decided On : 04-08-2022
Fraud - Property Dispute - The Madras High Court Writ Rules, 2021 - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P., (2007) 4 SCC 221
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners claimed absolute ownership over a property and filed a suit seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction. The suit was decreed in their favor by a competent civil court. The 1st respondent sought to set aside the order based on the claim that the petitioners had relied upon a forged and fabricated document.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the order obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non-est in the eye of the law. It nullified the judgment and decree passed by the competent civil court, declaring it to be a nullity and non-est in the eye of the law. The court also directed the District Collector to initiate proceedings against others who had utilized the forged and fabricated order.
Issues: a) Whether the court can go into the issue of genuineness of the document in collateral proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. b) Whether the court can nullify the judgment and decree passed by a competent civil court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court can go into the issue of genuineness of the document in collateral proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if it was a fraud played on the court by using a forged order. The court can nullify the judgment and decree passed by a competent civil court if it has been obtained by playing fraud on the court and such a decree is a nullity and non-est in the eye of the law.
Final Decision: The Order passed in W.P.No.15507 of 2021 is set aside. The judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.122 of 2011 is declared to be a nullity and non-est in the eye of the law. The District Collector is directed to initiate proceedings against others who had utilized the forged and fabricated order.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Review Petition has been filed under Order 47 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC ., r/w Section 114 of Civil Procedure Court to review the order passed in W.P.No.15507 of 2021 dated 21.09.2021.)
1. The District Collector who was the 1st respondent in the Writ Petition has filed this Review Application and sought for setting aside the Order passed by this Court on 21.09.2021 in W.P.No.15507 of 2021.
2. For easy understanding, the parties will be referred as per their rank assigned in the Writ Petition.
3. The petitioners claimed absolute ownership over the property situated at Survey No.138/2, Kolathur Village, Chennai, measuring an extent of 1.05 acres, by virtue of a registered sale deed, dated 6.1.1990 executed by one, S. Rathinavelu. The petitioners filed a suit in O.S.No.528 of 2000 on the file of the XIVth Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, seeking for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction. In the said suit, the Special Commissioner and Commissioner for land administration, the Secretary to Government, Agriculture Department and the Collector, Chennai district were made as the defendants. The suit came to be dismissed by a judgment and decree dated 6.1.2010. Aggrieved by the same,the petitioners filed an Appeal in A.S.No.122 of 2011 before the XVIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and the appeal was allowed through a judgment and decree dated 3.1.2013 and thereby the suit was decreed in favour of the petitioners. This decree became final and it was not put to challenge by the defendants in the suit.
4. The petitioners made several representations seeking for granting patta in their favour. That apart, the Corporation of Chennai had also put up a shed in the property and was taking steps to construct compost yards. Hence, the petitioners filed W.P.No.15507 of 2021. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by an Order dated 21.9.2021 and the relevant portions in the Order are extracted hereunder:
“7. The facts that have been discussed Supra makes it clear that the title of the petitioners have been declared by a competent civil court and it binds the respondents/defendants. The 2nd respondent seems to be utilising the property based on the entry found in the Revenue Records as if the subject property is classified as "Anadhennam". However the fact remains that the subject property was found to be the absolute property of the petitioners and this judgment and decree was passed in the appeal after it was contested by the official defendants. It is also seen from the counter affidavit that the 2nd respondent has addressed a letter to the 1st respondent seeking for a permission to enter upon the property for setting up a Micro Compost Centre in the property.
8. In the considered view of this Court, the 1st respondent cannot grant any such permission in view of the fact that the District Collector is bound by the judgment and decree of the competent civil court. Till this judgment and decree is reversed in the manner known to law, there is no question of anyone denying the title of the petitioners. Even the 2nd respondent is attempting to put up a Micro Compost Centre in the property based on the entries made in the Revenue Records. The moment a Civil Court renders a decree by declaring the title to the property, the entry in the Revenue Records will become irrelevant.
9. In view of the above, the 2nd respondent cannot go forward and construct any Micro Composting Centre in the property and the 1st respondent cannot grant any such permission. That apart, the 2nd respondent has to necessarily consider the representations made by the petitioners on 23.02.2018 and 17.07.2020 and necessary steps must be taken to remove the shed, equipments and the solid waste that is lying in the property. The 2nd respondent cannot straight away get into the property belonging to the petitioners without following the due process of law and such an interference will violate the constitutional right guaranteed un
Fraud vitiates every solemn proceeding, and no right can be claimed by the fraudsters on the ground of technicality.
A review petition is maintainable where there is fraud, suppression of material facts and developments involving the same land and that too when the property already became a property of the State.
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice, ruling that all parties must be included in property disputes to ensure fair adjudication.
Parties invoking extraordinary jurisdiction must disclose all relevant facts; suppression of material facts constitutes an abuse of process and may lead to dismissal of the petition.
Execution of decree – Review of judgment – Validity of - Judgment of Court is based has been reversed or modified by subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground f....
Section 41 says that where with the consent, express or implied, of the persons interested in immovable property, a person is the ostensible owner of such property and transfers the same for consider....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
