This intra-court appeal seeks to lay a challenge to a

learned Single Judge's order dated 23.03.2023 whereby

W.P.No.55576/2014 (KLR-RES) having been allowed, the

orders passed by the Revenue Courts having been set at

naught and a direction has been issued to the 4^th

respondent – Tahasildar herein to effect mutation of entry

- 3 -

in favour of the 1^st respondent – writ petitioner in terms of

the compromise decree entered in O.S No.350/1997,

concerning the subject property.

Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently

argues that the impugned order is liable to be voided

inasmuch as the appellants were not parties to the subject

suit which was decreed on the basis of a fraudulent

compromise. In support of his case, he cites decision of

the Apex Court in S.P.CHENGALVARAYA NAIDU (DEAD) BY

LRS vs. JAGANNATH (DEAD) BY LRS, AIR 1994 SC 853 to the

effect that fraud vitiates everything and therefore, no

relief could have been granted to the writ petitioner.

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants

and

the

learned

Additional

Government

Advocate

appearing

for

the

official

respondents,

we

decline

indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the

reasoning on which the impugned order has been

structured.

Learned

Single

Judge

has

founded

his

- 4 -

judgment on the Compromise Decree in O.S No.350/1997,

and therefore, it cannot be faltered. It has been the

consistent view of this Court and of the Apex Court that

the entries concerning the private properties need to

accord with the Court decrees. This view is reflected in

the impugned order.

The submission of learned counsel for the appellants

that subject decree has been obtained by fraud and

therefore, the same could not have been acted upon more

particularly when his clients were not parties eo nomine to

the suit, is bit difficult to examine. “Fraud vitiates

everything”, said Edward Coke centuries ago. However,

fraud cannot be assumed in the absence of specific

pleadings giving full particulars of the acts that amounted

to fraud coupled with evidentiary material. The decision in

CHENGALVARAYA NAIDU (supra) needs to be viewed from

this angle. It has been a settled position of law that a

compromise decree obtained on the basis of fraud and

fabrication can be vacated by the Court which entered it,

- 5 -

on an application being made by a non party in terms of

Order XXIII Rule 3A read with Section 151 of CPC, 1908

vide AJANTA LLP vs. CASIO KEISANKI KABUSHIKI KAISHA

D/B/A CASIO COMPUTER COMPANY LIMITED & ANOTHER,

(2022) 5 SCC 449. Such a course is open to the appellants

and in that connection all contentions need to be left open.

In the above circumstances, this appeal being devoid

of merits is liable to be and accordingly dismissed, costs

having been made easy.

Registry to send a copy of this judgment to the 1^st

respondent – Ramadasaiah by speed post.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

LB

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23