Back
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY
Aman Kumar @ Aman Agrawal – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri. Abhishek Krishna for respondent no.3 and Shri. A.P. Singh on behalf of respondent no.4.
2. Petitioners’ application for mutation of their names in place of their father in regard to property in question submitted under Section 147 of Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 (hereinafter called the ‘Act, 1916’) was allowed vide order dated 9.10.2019 on basis of a registered will dated 18.10.2008 in their favour executed by their father as well as despite publication of notice, no objection was filed on behalf of contesting private respondents.
3. Contesting respondents instead of filing an appeal as provided under Section 160 of the, Act, 1916 filed a recall application for recalling above referred order dated 9.10.2019 on ground that it was a case of misrepresentation as petitioners despite knowledge have not disclosed that subsequently a will dated 3.6.2014 was executed in favour of private respondents and therefore said application was allowed by impugned order dated 9.10.2019 and appeal thereof was dismissed by the other impugned order dated 5.9.2022.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that a
Fraud vitiates every solemn act, and an order obtained by fraud can be recalled by the authority. The judiciary possesses inherent power to set aside an order obtained by fraud, and fraud unravels ev....
The court affirmed that authorities possess inherent jurisdiction to revoke fraudulent orders even in the absence of specific statutory provisions for review.
Fraud vitiates all solemn acts and any instrument obtained through fraud is void.
The court affirmed the Board of Revenue's decision, ruling that the Naib Tehsildar acted within jurisdiction and the petitioner's claims were dismissed due to lack of grounds for recall.
The court affirmed that mutation proceedings are summary in nature and do not determine substantive rights, allowing for alternative remedies under the U.P. Revenue Code.
Fraud vitiates all judicial acts, and any judgment, decree, or order obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that probate is not required for Wills made by Mohammedians or Indian Christians under Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and that mut....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a judgment obtained by practicing fraud can be recalled, and the court has inherent power to recall its own order obtained by fraud.
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
