Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2017 (1) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (1) TMI 1736 - SC - Indian LawsReopening of proceedings pertaining to the dismissal of his suit for specific performance - allotment of the suit property - prayer made in the plaint filed by Makhija was for a declaration that the decree dated 4th October, 1999 passed in favour of Pushparani was obtained in a fraudulent manner and is void and not worthy of being executed - HELD THAT:- When there is an allegation of fraud by non-disclosure of necessary and relevant facts or concealment of material facts, it must be inquired into. It is only after evidence is led coupled with intent to deceive that a conclusion of fraud could be arrived at. A mere concealment or non-disclosure without intent to deceive or a bald allegation of fraud without proof and intent to deceive would not render a decree obtained by a party as fraudulent. To conclude in a blanket manner that in every case where relevant facts are not disclosed, the decree obtained would be fraudulent, is stretching the principle to a vanishing point. What is fraud has been adequately discussed in MEGHMALA & ORS. VERSUS G. NARASIMHA REDDY & ORS. [2010 (8) TMI 922 - SUPREME COURT] - Unfortunately, this decision does not refer to earlier decisions where also there is an equally elaborate discussion on fraud. These two decisions are BHAURAO DAGDU PARALKAR VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [2005 (8) TMI 661 - SUPREME COURT] and STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. VERSUS HARAPRIYA BISOI [2009 (4) TMI 1006 - SUPREME COURT]. There is no doubt that Makhija had an opportunity to prove the allegation of fraud when he filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, he missed that opportunity right up to this Court. Makhija took a second shot at alleging fraud and filing another suit against Pushparani. However, the evidence that he relied upon was very thin and could not even be considered as secondary evidence. Accordingly both the Trial Court as well as the High Court rejected the allegation of fraud by not accepting the evidence put forward by Makhija to allege that fraud had been committed by Pushparani when she obtained the decree dated 4th October, 1999. Fraud not having been proved but merely alleged, there are no reason to differ with the judgment and order passed by the High Court and the Trial Court. The appeal is dismissed with costs quantified at ₹ 50,000/-.
|