Fraud-tainted decree challenge and joint family property principles can support an independent suit, but not interim stay without prima facie proof.

Section 44 of the Indian Evidence Act permits a party to show that a decree relied on was obtained by fraud or collusion, and that challenge may also be raised through an independent suit where the decree affects the party's rights. The note further states that assessment records describing the concern as HUF and joint family property supported a prima facie view of joint family ownership, and that a coparcener may seek partition during the father's lifetime. On the material then available, no prima facie case of fraud or collusion or balance of convenience for stay was made out, so interim relief was refused.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a tenant could maintain an independent suit to challenge a partition decree on the grounds of fraud and collusion; (ii) whether, on the material placed, there was a prima facie basis to hold the property to be joint family property and to justify staying the rent proceedings.

Issue (i): whether a tenant could maintain an independent suit to challenge a partition decree on the grounds of fraud and collusion.

Analysis: Section 44 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 permits a party to show that a decree sought to be relied upon was obtained by fraud or collusion. If such a challenge can be raised even in proceedings where the decree is set up as evidence, there is no legal bar to an independent suit questioning the decree on the same grounds. A decree obtained by fraud is not immune from attack by a person whose rights are affected by it.

Conclusion: the suit was maintainable in law so far as it challenged the decree on the ground of fraud or collusion.

Issue (ii): whether, on the material placed, there was a prima facie basis to hold the property to be joint family property and to justify staying the rent proceedings.

Analysis: The assessment records showed the concern in the name of the joint family and described the status as HUF, which supported the view that the property was treated as joint family property. The contention that a son could not seek partition during the father's lifetime was rejected in light of the settled position that a coparcener may seek partition. On the materials then available, no prima facie case of fraud or collusion in obtaining the partition decree was made out, and the balance of convenience did not favour staying the eviction proceedings.

Conclusion: no prima facie case for stay was established and interim relief was refused.

Final Conclusion: the application for stay was rejected, and the impugned partition decree was not shown prima facie to be vitiated by fraud or collusion for the purpose of interim relief.

---