A judgment obtained by fraud or collusion does not operate as res judicata and is not binding on the parties to the proceedings. Such a judgment can be avoided in subsequent proceedings by a party able to show that it was obtained by fraud or collusion.

JUDGMENT :

SIDDHARTH, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing the judgment and order dated 25.09.1972 of Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, Basti, in Appeal Nos. 71 to 74 and judgment and order dated 23.06.1976 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti, in revision nos. 47 to 50.

2. This writ petition arises out of the objections under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation Act, 1953 (for short, the Act). These objections are a total of six. The land in dispute comprises of Gata nos. 12, 14, 115, 70, 196, 11 and 111, all situate in Village Taraina, Pargana Bansi East, District Basti. Of these, three separate objections were filed by Ram Lagan, Ram Lal and Vijay Bahadur, all sons of Chulhai, respondents nos. 3, 4 and 5, respectively, to this petition. All the three objections last mentioned were filed on a common and identical cause of action and for the same relief, that is to say, that revenue entries relating to Gata nos. 12, 14 and 115 (supra) be corrected according to the compromise decree, dated 23.11.1959 passed by the Judicial Officer, Bansi, District Basti in Suit No. 270 of 1959, under Section 229-B.

3. Two objections were filed by the petitioners. The first of these objections related to Gata nos. 70 and 196, and claimed co-tendency rights with the recorded tenure holders. The other objection claimed a 1/6th share in Gata nos. 11 and 111.

4. The last of the six objections, was filed by Kodai, respondent no. 6, laying claim to the entire Khata nos. 11 and 111 on the basis of a case that the petitioners have no right, title or interest therein, and that the aforesaid Khata numbers are self-acquired property of the sixth respondent.

5. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 18.01.1969 dismissed the objections filed by respondents nos. 3, 4 and 5, that is to say, Ram Lagan, Ram Lal and Vijay Bahadur, in that order, now represented by their legal representatives, respondents nos. 3/1, 4/1 and 5/1, in relation to Khata nos. 12, 14 and 15. The claim of respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 to Khata nos. 70 and 196, was also rejected with a direction that entries in their favour in the Revenue Records be expunged. On the other hand, the objections of the petitioners relating to Khata nos. 70 and 196 were allowed, and they were ordered to be recorded as co-tenants alongwith the recorded tenure holders. Likewise, the other objections of the petitioners relating to Khata no. 111 and Khata no. 11 were allowed with a direction that their names along with Shiv Mangal, Shiv Murat and Shiv Baran, then minors through their guardian and mother, besides names of Manorath son of Lal Bihari, Ram Dularey and Harihar, sons of Nageshar, be recorded as co-sharers. The sixth objection filed by Kodai too was allowed, granting him a 1/3rd share in Khata nos. 12, 115, 70, 196, 111, besides Araji No. 725, admeasuring 0-14-8, part of Khata no. 11.

6. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Consolidation Officer determining the sixth objection, four Appeals were filed by the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5, that is to say, Ram Lagan, Ram Lal and Vijay Bahadur. These Appeals Nos. 71, 72, 73 and 74 on the file of the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Basti. The appeals were heard and allowed by the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide judgment and order dated 25.09.1972. The judgment and order of the Consolidation Officer, dated 18.01.1969 was set aside. The names of the petitioners were directed to be expunged from Khata nos. 12, 14, 115, 70, 196, 11 and 111, besides Araji no. 725, admeasuring 0-14-8, part of Khata no. 11(for short, the land in dispute) and in their place, the names of respondents nos. 3, 4 and 5, Ram Lagan, Ram Lal and Vijay Bahadur, were ordered to be recorded. It was ordered that the share allotted to the petitioners be allotted to respondents nos. 3, 4 and 5 in terms done by the Consolidation Officer.

7. The petitioners put in issue