Back
2025 Supreme(MP) 1007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
ALOK AWASTHI, J.
Sanat Kumar And Others - Petitioner
Versus
Murti Shriram Mandir Nelkheda Th.Sanraks - Respondent
FIRST APPEAL No. 204 of 2007
Decided On : 28-11-2025
For the Petitioner:Shri A.S. Garg, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Aditya Garg, learned counsel
For the Respondent:Shri Anand Soni, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Dr. Amit Bhatia, Govt. Advocate
A judicial decree obtained by fraud, suppression of material facts, or non-joinder of necessary parties is non-est and void ab initio. Such a decree cannot be shielded by the principle of res judicata, as fraud invalidates all prior judicial acts and legal finality.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96 - Property Law - Religious Endowments - Declaration that a judgment and decree obtained by fraud and suppression of material facts are void ab initio - Whether the principle of res judicata applies to such a decree - Held, a judgment or order obtained by practicing fraud on the Court is a nullity and does not operate as res judicata; it can be challenged at any stage by the affected party. (Paras 35-37, 42)
(B) Religious Property - Status of a custodian - Deity as a juristic person - Whether a custodian of a religious institution acquires proprietary rights over its lands - Held, the deity is a juristic person and the owner of the dedicated property; a custodian or manager acts only as a servant and acquires no ownership rights over the facility or land, regardless of how long they perform religious duties. (Paras 24, 52-54)
(C) Procedural Law - Non-joinder of necessary parties - Effect on validity of suit - Failure to implead the real ownership interest in a dispute involving religious property renders the proceedings and resulting decree defective and liable to be set aside, especially when material judicial outcomes are suppressed. (Paras 38-39)
Facts of the case:
The appeal challenges a trial court order declaring a prior civil court decree null and void. The original suit concerning the underlying property was initiated by an individual claiming rights based on succession and a forged document. The current plaintiffs alleged that the previous litigation had been tainted by fraud, suppression of material facts, and the deliberate omission of necessary parties, including the institutional entity that holds the legal ownership of the property.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the previous decree was procured by deception and suppression of previous judicial findings regarding the forgery of succession documents. The deity, as a perpetual minor, was not represented, and the claimant was merely a manager without title.
Issues: Whether the suit was barred by res judicata or procedural rules regarding compromise decrees, and whether the claimant had proprietary rights to the disputed religious property.
Ratio Decidendi: Fraud vitiates all legal acts, and a decree obtained through such means is void ab initio, rendering the doctrine of merger or res judicata inapplicable to protect it. A religious idol possesses the status of a juristic person; therefore, its property cannot be claimed by a manager or custodian.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual history of property ownership and litigation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 14) |
| 2. appellants contend title based on possession and challenge res judicata. (Para 11 , 13 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 3. respondent argues fraud, lack of title in pujari, and non-joinder. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 4. court scrutinizes evidence of fraud and procedural validity. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 55) |
| 5. fraud vitiates all solemn judicial acts and legal proceedings. (Para 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 6. deity as juristic person; pujari is only a manager. (Para 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54) |
| 7. appeal dismissed; decree obtained by fraud is nullity. (Para 56 , 57) |
JUDGMENT :
By way of this first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred as to “C.P.C.”) the judgment and decree dated 14.03.2007 passed by the learned Additional judge to the Court of Additional District Judge, Agar, District Shajapur in Civil Case No. 10-A/2004 is called in question, whereby, the judgment and decree dated 10.01.1997 (wrongly mentioned in impugned order as 10.11.1997, hence, further, it be treated as 10.01.1997) passed by the Additional District Judge, Agar District Shajapur in Civil Case No. 42-A/1996 has been declared illegal and void.
2) The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal in brief, are that the plaintiff/respondent Murti Shri Ram Mandir Nalkheda filed the civil suit before the learned Trial Court, seeking a relief to declare the judgment and decree dated 10.01.1997 as void, passed in Civil Suit No. 42-A/1996 by the same Court, as the said judgment was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation and concealment of facts and several documents as well as the said judgment was frustrated due to non-joiner of necessary parties as the plaintiff/respondent was not arrayed as a party in the Civil Suit No. 42-A/1996.
3) It is pertinent to mention here that the plaint was filed against the respondent Gokul Das S/o Shri Narayan Das, however, due to his demise during the pendency of the civil suit, the legal representatives of Gokul Das was impleaded as parties in the suit, which are the present appellants in this appeal.
4) In the present appeal, the land in dispute is a land bearing Survey Nos. 39 and 40 samvat 2043 of Kasba Nalkheda and Survey Nos. 29 and 24 semvat 2054 of village Dokarpura, Tehsil Nalkheda as well as a house Dharamshala and Rammandir constructed in the area falling within the ambit of Nagar Panchayat Nalkheda. For the sake of convenience, these all properties, here and after shall be referred as disputed property. In the civil suit Shri Ram Mandir Murthy has been considered as a minor due to which its guardian is being considered as the State of Madhya Pradesh, has filed the civil suit. The original plaintiff Murti Shriram Mandir owns a temple in which the idol of Lord Shri Ram is worshipped as well as there is a Dharamsala belonging to the temple. In this temple, a math ¼eB½ was established where the Guru Shishya is practised and as per this tradition, after the demise of the Guru, the senior most disciple or Chela takes upon the responsibility to manage the affairs of the temple and its property. As per the said tradition, the last Guru of the math ¼eB½ was Guru Narayan Das, who got the authority from his Guru Mathura Das. Guru Narayan Das died in the year 1965, however, during his lifetime, he had tried to siphon off and alienate the properties of Mandir Shri Ram Murti, due to which the State of Madhya Pradesh constituted an Aukaf Committee.
5) It was also pleaded that the Guru Narayan Das in the year 1965, filed a Civil Suit No. 52A/1965 against the State of Madhya Pradesh and Aukaf Committee but during the pendency of this civil suit, the Guru Narayan Das died due to which the Gokul Das, by claiming himself as the legal heir or successor of Guru Narayan Das continue the legal proceedings of the af
