Judgments obtained through fraud can be recalled; however, mere allegations without proof do not suffice.

CAV JUDGMENT

Date : 11-12-2025 Heard Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Pramod Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

2. This application has been filed for recalling the judgment dated 24.06.2015 passed in First Appeal No. 119 of 1993 by a Bench of this Court and also judgment and decree dated 30.01.1993 passed by the learned Sub-Judge-Ist, Begusarai in Title Suit No. 96 of 1985 as both the judgments and decree were obtained by playing fraud upon this Court. The fraud has been played upon the Trial Court and the petitioners as well by making false statements/deliberately suppressing the material facts that the families of the parties to the suit are joint although the families of the parties to the suit were separated by partitioning the joint family property by metes and bounds, which has been admitted by opposite party no. 2 in the recitals of the sale deeds executed after passing of the judgment dated 24.06.2015 passed in F.A. No. 119 of 1993.

3. The defendants/respondents are petitioners in the present application and the plaintiffs/appellants are opposite parties in the present case.

4. The partition suit was filed by the plaintiffs/opposite parties for partition with respect to their half share in the joint family property mentioned in Schedule-I and that a separate takhta be carved out through survey knowing Commissioner as well as to declare the alleged deed of gift dated 08.11.1984 purported to have been executed by Ram Sagar Singh (defendant no. 1) in favour of defendant nos. 2 to 6 as null and void, which confers no title and possession of the alleged donee and further claim for a decree for accounting the income of the joint family property directing defendant no. 1 to furnish account as well as the cost of the suit.

5. The First Appeal was preferred against the judgment and preliminary decree dated 30.01.1993 passed by the learned Sub-Judge-Ist, Begusarai in Title Suit No. 96 of 1985, whereby, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was partly decreed declaring one- third share of the plaintiffs described in Schedule-I of the plaint and the gift deed executed by Ram Sagar Singh (defendant no. 1)

in favour of defendant nos. 2 to 6 was declared valid.

6. After hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court partly decreed the suit granting one-third share in the immovable properties described in Schedule-I of the plaint. It was held that there was no partition by metes and bounds between the parties for immovable properties described in Schedule-I of the plaint and also held that gift deed dated 08.11.1984 is valid.

7. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs/opposite parties preferred aforesaid first appeal before this Court which was partly allowed holding that the deed of gift (Ext.-A) is a void document executed by a coparcener Ram Sagar Singh (defendant no. 1) in favour of defendant nos. 2 to 6 as Ram Sagar Singh had no authority to transfer by gift as gifted share in the coparcener property and accordingly set aside the finding of the Trial Court with regard to gift deed Ext.-A and also held that there was no partition by metes and bounds between the parties for immovable properties described in Schedule-I of the plaint. The defendants/respondents/petitioners did not file any cross appeal and as such, the same finding of fact has attained finality and further held that the plaintiffs are entitled to half share in the Schedule-I properties and so far finding of the Trial Court with regard to immovable properties are concerned, the learned Single Judge has affirmed the finding of the Trial Court.

8. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree da