Fraud-based collateral challenge to a final decree fails without specific pleading and proof of deceit.

A final decree affirmed in appeal cannot be collaterally impeached on a vague allegation of fraud. The court reiterated that fraud must be specifically pleaded and proved with evidence showing an intent to deceive; a bare assertion or incomplete disclosure is insufficient to treat the decree as a nullity. The appellant's attempt to reopen the concluded dispute through a fresh suit also failed because the earlier proceedings had already attained finality and the material relied on was too weak to support the fraud claim. The decree in favour of the respondent was therefore upheld and the appeal dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant could maintain a collateral challenge to the earlier decree on the ground of fraud without pleading and proving specific fraud, and whether the alleged power of attorney furnished a basis for reopening the concluded dispute.

Analysis: The earlier decree in favour of the respondent had been passed after trial, affirmed in appeal, and had attained finality when further challenge was rejected. The appellant had already sought to introduce additional evidence in the earlier proceedings, but the attempt failed. In the subsequent suit, the pleadings did not contain a specific and substantiated case of fraud in obtaining the decree. A decree said to be vitiated by fraud can be treated as a nullity only where fraud is properly pleaded and proved; a bare allegation or incomplete disclosure, without proof of intent to deceive, is insufficient. The material relied upon by the appellant was found to be weak and incapable of supporting the claim.

Conclusion: The collateral challenge failed, and the decree in favour of the respondent was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed because fraud was neither specifically pleaded nor proved, and the appellant could not reopen a final and concluded decree through a fresh collateral suit.

Ratio Decidendi: A final decree cannot be collaterally impeached on allegations of fraud unless the fraud is specifically pleaded and proved with evidence showing intent to deceive.

---