Fraud vitiates all judicial acts; a decree obtained through fraudulent means is a nullity and can be challenged, even collaterally.

ORDER :

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to set aside (i) the ex parte decree dated 29.09.2023 passed in O.S.No.16 of 2023 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Pennagaram and (ii) the sale deed dated 15.11.2024, executed in favour of the 1^st respondent- Ganesan by the learned District Munsif, Pennagaram, pursuant to the orders passed in the execution proceedings in E.P.No.1 of 2024 initiated on the basis of the said ex parte decree for specific performance of an agreement for sale.

2.0 The brief facts leading to the filing of this Civil Revision Petition are as follows:

2.1 The 2nd respondent-A.Madhu purchased a property measuring an extent of 1.99 Acres of land comprised in S.NO.679/1 situated at Sunjalnatham village, by virtue of sale deed dated 27.03.1987 vide Doc.No.346 of 1987; so also he purchased two other properties measuring an extent of 1.37 ½ Acres of land comprised in S.NO.679/8 and another extent of 42 cents comprised S.No.679/4 at Sunjalnatham village by virtue of registered sale deed dated 18.01.1991 vide Doc. No.17 of 1991. After having purchased, on 26.07.2013, the 2^nd respondent-A.Madhu sold the property measuring an extent of 1.36 Acres of land comprised in S.No.679/8B; 1.99 Acres of land comprised in S.No.679/1 and 0.42 cents of land comprised in S.No.679/4 situated at Sunjalnatham village to one D.Maddhaiyan, G.Rajendran and P.K.Duraisamy vide Doc.No.361 of 2013. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent-A.Madhu, the original owner executed a rectification deed dated 31.08.2015 vide Doc. No.3035/2015 in favour of the said D.Maddhaiyan, G.Rajendran and P.K.Duraisamy to rectify the mistake in respect of the survey number for 1.36 acres of land. According to the rectification deed, instead of S.NO.679/8A, it was wrongly typed out as S.No.679/8B.

2.2 Thereafter, one I.Veerasamy, a practising Advocate as plaintiff, filed a suit in O.S. No. 21 of 2020 against his own brother-A.Madhu, the 2nd respondent herein, and his other family members for partition and also for a declaration, declaring the sale deed dated 26.07.2013 executed by the 2nd respondent in favour of D.Maddhaiyan, G.Rajendran and P.K.Duraisamy as null and void and for permanent injunction which suit was taken on file as O.S. No. 21 of 2020.

2.3 In the said suit, an interim application was filed by Advocate Mr. I. Veerasamy, which was numbered as I.A. No. 131 of 2021, seeking an order of interim injunction. The above-said application was heard and dismissed by the District Munsif by order dated 29.10.2021 on merits. Pursuant to the dismissal of the interim application for ad-interim injunction, Advocate Mr. I. Veerasamy, who was the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.21 of 2020 and also appeared in person, filed a memo dated 15.11.2021 seeking leave of the Court to withdraw the suit in O.S.No.21 of 2020. The learned District Munsif, acceding to the request of the plaintiff-Advocate-I.Veerasamy, dismissed the suit in O.S.No.21 of 2020 as not pressed.

2.4 While so, D.Maddhaiyan, G.Rajendran and P.K.Duraisamy, who originally purchased the properties described in the suit schedule measuring an extent of 1.30 acres of land in S.No.679/8A; 1.99 Acres of land in S.No.679/1 and 42 cents of land in S.No.679/4 after having retained 0.06 cents in S.No.679/8A by way of sale deed dated 13.12.2021 vide Doc.No.5687 of 2021 from the 2^nd respondent-A.Madhu, in turn, sold the same on 13.12.2021 to the revision petitioners by virtue of a registered sale deed bearing Document No. 5687 of 2021. Pursuant to the said purchase, the revenue records were mutated in their name.

2.5 When the matter stood thus, Ganesan, the 1^st respondent herein engaged Mr. I. Veerasamy, Advocate, to file a suit for specific performance against the 2nd respondent in O.S. No. 16 of 2023 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Pennagaram, based o