A decree obtained by playing fraud upon the court is a nullity and non-est in law. Consequently, a third party, whose interests are adversely affected, possesses the locus standi to institute a legal challenge to set aside such a fraudulent decree, regardless of their absence in the original proceedings.

JUDGEMENT :

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

1.The 1^st plaintiff/appellant has filed this appeal to set aside the judgment and decree dated 21.04.2008, made in AS No.19 of 2007, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tiruvarur, reversing the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2006, made in OS No.42 of 2005, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruvarur.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were ranked in the suit.

3. Aggrieved by the reversing findings of the first appellate Court, the first plaintiff has preferred the present Second Appeal. The other plaintiffs have been transposed as Respondents 2 to 4, as they are not supporting the first plaintiff.

4. Before the trial Court, the plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 42 of 2005 seeking a declaration that the decree obtained by the first defendant in O.S. No. 337 of 1995 is null and void, and consequently prayed for permanent injunction in respect of the four items of the suit properties described in the plaint schedule. The said suit was contested by the first defendant by stating that he had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties for several decades, and that the plaintiffs were neither the lawful owners of the properties nor entitled to challenge the decree obtained by him before the Court of law. According to him, upon establishing his prima facie case, he had obtained a decree for permanent injunction in O.S. No. 337 of 1995. Since the plaintiffs were not parties to the said suit, they were not entitled to challenge the decree by filing the present suit.Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. Before the trial Court, both the plaintiffs and the defendant adduced oral and documentary evidence. On the plaintiffs side, plaintiff was examined as P.W., and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A20 documents were marked. On the defendant side, defendant was examined as D.W.1 and Ex.B1 to Ex.26 documents were marked.

6. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the decree obtained by the defendant had been secured by suppressing material facts and was therefore fraudulent. Accordingly, the decree in O.S. No. 337 of 1995 was declared null and void. The trial Court also held that the plaintiffs were in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and consequently granted the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for.

7. Challenging the said findings, the defendant preferred A.S. No. 19 of 2007 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvarur. The first appellate Court re-appreciated the evidence, framed separate points for consideration, and ultimately concluded that the plaintiffs were not the lawful owners of the suit properties and therefore had no right to challenge the decree obtained by the defendant in O.S. No. 337 of 1995. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial Court were set aside. Aggrieved by the reversing findings of the first appellate Court, the first plaintiff has preferred the present Second Appeal.

8. The brief facts of the case are as follows:Originally, O.S. No. 42 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tir