Only parties to a decree can seek its cancellation; vague allegations of fraud do not suffice to establish grounds for such claims.

JUDGMENT 'C.R.'

The plaintiff in a suit for cancellation of a decree in O.S.No.49/1997 of the Munsiff Court, Pattambi (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') and for other consequential reliefs is the appellant herein.

2. In the suit, the plaintiff sought for cancellation of a decree for partition contending that one of the items in the partition decree was under his sole ownership and possession as per Exts.A2 to A4 assignment deeds executed by the legal heirs of late Fathima Beevi. Certain properties owned by Kuhnjayamu Master were gifted by him in favour of his daughter Fathima Beevi as per Ext.A1 assignment deed. Upon the death of Fathima Beevi, Exts.A2 to A4 assignment deeds were executed by her legal heirs in favour of the plaintiff.

3. The plaintiff contended that fraud was played on the court by the plaintiff in the earlier suit and hence, sought for cancellation of the decree. The trial court held that the suit for cancellation is not maintainable at the instance of a person, who is not a party to the instrument or a person, who is claiming under the executor of the document. In other words, the plaintiff cannot seek for cancellation of the document in which he is not a party to the suit and his remedy is to seek for declaration that he is not affected by the document.

4. Challenging the judgment and decree, the plaintiff carried the matter in appeal. The Sub Court, Ottappalam (hereinafter referred to as 'the first appellate court') dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court. For the sake of brevity, the parties shall be hereinafter referred to as referred in the original suit unless otherwise stated.

5. Heard Sri.J.Ramkumar, the learned counsel for the appellant.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the two courts below erred in dismissing the suit giving a sole reason that the plaintiff is not a party to the suit, the decree of which is sought to be cancelled. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that both the plaintiff and the defendants are claiming under the same title. According to the learned counsel, the two courts below erred in dismissing the suit giving a sole reason that the plaintiff is not a party to the suit, the decree of which is sought to be cancelled.

7. The plaintiff produced Exts.A2 to A4 assignment deeds to prove his right over the plaint schedule property. The plaint schedule property originally belonged to the plaintiff's grandfather Kuhnjayamu Master. He had executed Ext.A1 gift deed in favour of the plaintiff's mother. On her death, her children obtained right over the plaint schedule property. These rights are subsequently alleged to be sold to him as per Exts.A2 to A4.

8. It is the specific contention of the plaintiff that the defendants exercised fraud on the court by incorporating the plaint schedule property behind his back. However, the term 'fraud' has not been explained by the plaintiff in the plaint. In a case in which the party pleading relies on any mis-representation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful default or undue influence, the particulars with dates and items, if any, shall be stated in the pleading in accordance with Order VI Rule 4 of Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the C.P.C.'). Ext.B1 plaint in O.S.No.49/1997 of the Munsiff's Court, Pattambi would show that the allegations are made in a vague and sweeping manner.

9. It is the definite case of the plaintiff t