SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1993 Supreme(SC) 1014

KULDIP SINGH, P.B.SAWANT
S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu – Appellant
Versus
Jagannath – Respondent


Advocates:
A.T.M.SAMPATH, LILY THOMAS, Pushpa Rangam

Judgement Key Points

Please provide the full legal document content (inside tags or otherwise) so I can extract and summarize the key points with proper references as instructed.


Judgment

KULDIP SINGH, J.:- "Fraud-avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal" observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago. It is the settled proposition of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law. Such a judgment / decree -- by the first court or by the highest court - has to be treated as a nullity by every court, whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings.

2. Predecessor-in-interest of the respondents-plaintiffs filed application for final decree for partition and separate possession of the plaint properties and for mesne profits. The appellants defendants contested the application on the ground that the preliminary decree, which was sought to be made final, was obtained by fraud and, as such, the application was liable to be dismissed. The trial Judge accepted the contention and dismissed the application for grant of final decree. The respondents-plaintiffs went in appeal before the High Court. A Division Bench of the High Court went through plethora of case law and finally allowed the appeal and set aside the order of















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

Harmesh Kumar VS Maya Bai - 2005 0 Supreme(P&H) 841: Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L. Rs. v. Jagannath (dead) by L. Rs. and Ors., AIR 1994 SC 853.

This case has been repeatedly cited for the proposition that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and can be challenged at any stage. The list contains numerous references to this case, emphasizing its status as a foundational precedent on fraud vitiating judicial acts.

The frequent references such as “the Supreme Court held that one who comes to Court must come with clean hands” and “fraud avoids all judicial acts” indicate that this case is still treated as good law, not overruled or questioned.

No indication in the list suggests it has been overruled or discredited; rather, it remains a key authority on the principle that fraud vitiates judicial acts.

[Followed / Affirmed Treatment]

Several references (e.g., RAMPATI JAISWAL VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 1996 0 Supreme(All) 603, , MAHENDRA SINGH VS SENIOR CITIZEN HOME COMPLEX WELFARE SOCIETY - 2011 0 Supreme(All) 3006) indicate that the case is followed for the principle that a decree obtained by fraud is a nullity and can be challenged at any stage.

The case is cited to reinforce the doctrine that “fraud avoids all judicial acts,” which is a well-established principle in Indian law, as per the references.

[Grouped by Treatment Pattern]

Cases such as Shri Paresar VS Municipal Board, Mount Abu - 1996 0 Supreme(Raj) 634, Dharam Pal Singh VS State of Rajasthan - 2000 0 Supreme(Raj) 212, Shanker Lal VS State of Rajasthan - 2000 0 Supreme(Raj) 350, State of Rajasthan VS Ram Swaroop Bhargava - 2002 0 Supreme(Raj) 1886, Ashwani Kumar VS Union of India - 2001 0 Supreme(Raj) 1347, Jyoti Prakash VS Samast Ganchan Samaj - 2010 0 Supreme(Raj) 1846 show consistent affirmation that fraud on the court renders judgments or decrees null and void.

The case is also cited in contexts discussing the importance of disclosure of material facts, clean hands, and the consequences of concealment or misrepresentation, all affirming its continued validity.

[Cases where treatment is unclear or ambiguous]

Several references (e.g., MOHAN KUMAR VERMA VS RAJ KISHORE MATHUR - 2008 0 Supreme(Ori) 691, MOHAN KUMAR VERMA VS RAJ KISHORE MATHUR - 2008 0 Supreme(Ori) 691, Dipti Prasad Das VS Chief Manager and Authorised Officer, Punjab National Bank - 2022 0 Supreme(Ori) 103) cite the case in passing or in broad discussions of fraud, but without clear indication whether they affirm, question, or limit its principles.

Some references (e.g., MOHAMMED ASLAM VS NEELU DHANDHIYA - 2017 0 Supreme(Raj) 2359, Bhim Raj Katara S/o Ram Lal Katara VS State Of Rajasthan - 2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 98) mention the case in the context of general principles of fraud but do not specify whether the case has been overruled or distinguished.

The presence of multiple references to the case in various contexts suggests it remains authoritative, but without explicit treatment, these are categorized as uncertain.

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top