Decrees obtained through fraud or without conforming to legal standards are nullities, and such cases must be set aside to ensure judicial integrity.

ORDER :

The third parties, who filed an execution application under Order XXI Rule 101, Sections 47 and 151 of CPC, which came to be dismissed by the executing Court, are the revision petitioners.

2.I have heard Mr.Sharath Chandran, for Mr.K.S.Karthik Raja, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Mr.B.Vijayakumar and Mr.R.Babu, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent.

3.It is the case of the revision petitioners that the husband and father of the petitioners, by name, Murugasamy Gounder had purchased one half share of 10.52 acres in S.F.No.289 situate at Kalipalayam village, under a registered sale deed dated 20.10.1978. The said half share was in common enjoyment, out of the total extent of 10.52 acres. The said Murugasamy Gounder, during his lifetime and effected mutation of revenue records in his favour and subsequent to his demise, the petitioners claim to be in absolute possession and enjoyment of the said property, which is one half of 10.52 acres, situate on the eastern side.

4.It is the further case of the petitioners that the property was subdivided by the revenue and S.F.No.289/1 was mutated in the names of the revision petitioners. According to Mr.Sharath Chandran, the eastern half being in possession and enjoyment of the predecessor in title, Murugasamy Gounder and thereafter, the petitioners are referring to S.F.No.289/1 alone, which has been in their possession and enjoyment, right from 1978.

5.Mr.Sharath Chandran, learned counsel would further contend that the other half, namely the western portion belongs to one Kuruppa Gounder originally and the same was purchased by one P.Sivakumar, son of Ponnusamy Gounder. However, confusion arose when patta for the western side in the enjoyment of P.Sivakumar was mutated in the name of the petitioners' family instead of P.Sivakumar and in respect of the eastern side, subdivision was effected in the name of P.Sivakumar, instead of the petitioners. It is the further contention of the Mr.Shartah Chandran that both the families of P.Sivakumar as well as the petitioners were under the bonafide impression that the mutation of S.F.No.289/1 and S.F.No.289/2 were provided to their respective western and eastern portions of S.F.No.289 respectively, especially when there was no dispute amongst the parties with regard to the exclusive possession of the two halves.

6.It is the specific argument of Mr.Sharath Chandran that the inadvertent error committed by wrong mutation of records, would not confer ownership and when the entire cause of action for filing the suit originally in O.S.No.487 of 2008 was only in respect of the property that was originally belonging to Karupa Gounder, even though a decree was obtained collusively and by playing fraud upon Court, according to Mr.Sharath Chandran, the said decree cannot be put into execution against the petitioners who have been in settled possession of the eastern half of 10.52 acres in SF.No.289. He would also invite my attention to a suit filed by the father of the respondents 4^th respondent, Swaminathan and the father of the respondents 5 to 7, Vellingiri in E.A.No.20 of 2012. The said plaintiffs had admitted that they were not in possession of the suit property and in fact, the Court fee was paid, valuing the suit under Section 25(a) and a relief of recovery of possession, besides declaration of title had also been sought for.

7.A detailed written statement was filed by the petitioners in the said suit and pending the suit, both the plaintiffs Swaminathan and Vellingiri had settled their respective properties in favour of their wife and daughters, who are respondents 2 to 7 in respect of S.F.No.289/2. Bas