1993 (10) TMI 315 - SC - Indian Laws

Preliminary decree voidable when plaintiff procures it by deliberate fraud by withholding vital release deed from record

SP Chengalvaraya Naidu Versus Jagannath

SC held the preliminary decree voidable because the plaintiff procured it by deliberate fraud on the court, having withheld and failed to mention a vital ... Validity of preliminary decree obtained by playing fraud on the court - fundamental principle - Whether the plaintiff had a subsisting title to the properties at the time of the suit?​​​​​​​ - Held that:- The facts of the present case leave no manner of doubt that Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the court. A fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order to gain by another's loss. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage. Jagannath was working as a clerk with Chunilal Sowcar. He purchased the property in the court auction on behalf of Chunilal Sowcar. Non-production and even non-mentioning of the release deed at the trial is tantamount to playing fraud on the court. We do not agree with the observations of the High Court that the appellants- defendants could have easily produced the certified registered copy of Ex. B-15 and non-suited the plaintiff. A litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party. Issues:Fraudulent procurement of judgment, validity of preliminary decree obtained by fraud, duty of parties to disclose relevant information, principles of finality of litigation, consequences of fraud on the court.Analysis:The judgment discusses the fundamental principle that fraud renders any judicial act void. The court emphasizes that a judgment obtained through fraud is null and can be challenged in any court. The case involved a dispute over a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession obtained by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. The appellants contended that the decree was fraudulently obtained, leading to the dismissal of the application for a final decree by the trial court.The High Court overturned the trial court's decision, stating that the failure to disclose certain facts did not amount to extrinsic fraud. It held that the duty to establish lack of title rested with the defendants, who could have easily obtained evidence to challenge the plaintiff's claim. The High Court emphasized that there is no legal duty on the plaintiff to present a true case, except in specific proceedings like probate. It concluded that a judgment obtained based on false allegations does not warrant setting aside based on fraud in subsequent litigation.The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's reasoning, stating that the plaintiff had obtained the preliminary decree through fraud. It defined fraud as deliberate deception to gain an unfair advantage, highlighting the plaintiff's actions in concealing crucial information. The Court criticized the notion that a party is not obligated to disclose the truth, emphasizing that the courts exist to impart justice and must not be misused by dishonest litigants. It ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the High Court's judgment and reinstating the trial court's decision.In conclusion, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of honesty in legal proceedings and the duty of parties to disclose all relevant information. It reiterated that fraud undermines the integrity of the judicial process and cannot be tolerated. The judgment serves as a reminder that parties must approach the court with clean hands and that fraudulent conduct will not be condoned.