TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1736X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SUS 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut any authority given to Jinendra Jain. She also made a prayer for recovery of possession and grant of mesne profits since possession of the plot had been given by Jinendra Jain to Makhija. 6. Makhija also filed a civil suit before the District Judge which subsequently came to be numbered as Suit No. 52-A of 1999. The prayer made by Makhija was for specific performance of the agreement dated 16th October, 1988 entered into by him with Pushparani through her attorney Jinendra Jain. 7. Both the suits one filed by Pushparani and the other by Makhija were taken up and heard together. By a judgment and decree dated 4th October, 1999 the suit filed by Pushparani was decreed with the result that the agreement for sale dated 16th October, 1988 was declared to be illegal. It was also decreed that Makhija shall handover possession of the suit property to Pushparani and pay monthly compensation of ₹ 5,000/- per month. The suit filed by Makhija was dismissed. 8. Feeling aggrieved by the result of the two suits mentioned above, Makhija preferred two appeals before the High Court being F.A. No. 607 of 1999 and F.A. No. 638 of 1999 challenging the decree granted in favour of Pushp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was a photocopy of another photocopy (filed before the BDA) and as such it could not even be considered as secondary evidence. Even otherwise, the High Court concluded that there was no material to indicate that Jinendra Jain was authorized to enter into an agreement for sale the suit property on behalf of Pushparani. 11. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeals as well as the application, Makhija preferred S.L.P.(C) Nos. 524-525 of 2003 which came to be dismissed by this Court on 25th July, 2003. The review petitions filed by Makhija also came to be dismissed by this Court on 9th September, 2003. 12. Notwithstanding the dismissal of Makhija's case, he was unrelenting and filed yet another suit before the Additional District Judge, Bhopal which came to be numbered as Suit No. 471-A of 2008. In this suit, he produced a certified copy of the Power of Attorney dated 30th April, 1983 allegedly filed by Jinendra Jain before the BDA. The 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. This suit came t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ances can Makhija now collaterally pray for a decree of specific performance in respect of that agreement. 17. Through a collateral attack, Makhija has now sought to deprive Pushparani of her allotment of the suit property by alleging that she had concealed the Power of Attorney executed by her in favour of Jinendra Jain on 30th April, 1983 and had thereby committed a fraud on the courts. 18. We have been taken through the plaint filed by Makhija in Suit No. 471-A of 2008 and find that he has nowhere made any specific allegation of a fraud having been played by Pushparani on the Trial Court while obtaining the decree dated 4th October, 1999. 19. During the course of submissions, it was contended on behalf of Makhija that it is a settled proposition of law that a decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and that such a decree could be challenged at any time in any proceedings. Reliance was placed on A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of A.P. (2007) 4 SCC 221. This proposition is certainly not in dispute. 20. Learned Counsel also placed reliance on Union of India v. Ramesh Gandhi (2012) 1 SCC 476 which reads as under: 27. If a judgment obtained by pla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
