https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282568 A decree or execution sale obtained by fraud may be collaterally impeached in a later proceeding and treated as a nullity. The court held that the mortgagor, who had no knowledge of the fraudulent decree and sale, was not barred from seeking redemption without first setting aside those transactions. The challenge was not treated as one confined by the rule governing attacks on execution-sale proceedings, because the complaint went to fraud in obtaining the decree itself and the resulting sale. Section 44 of the Indian Evidence Act permitted the fraud to be shown in answer to reliance on the earlier decree, and limitation did not defeat the collateral challenge. The redemption decree in favour of the mortgagor was sustained. en-us Tue, 06 May 1952 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Aug 2019 12:56:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282568 A decree or execution sale obtained by fraud may be collaterally impeached in a later proceeding and treated as a nullity. The court held that the mortgagor, who had no knowledge of the fraudulent decree and sale, was not barred from seeking redemption without first setting aside those transactions. The challenge was not treated as one confined by the rule governing attacks on execution-sale proceedings, because the complaint went to fraud in obtaining the decree itself and the resulting sale. Section 44 of the Indian Evidence Act permitted the fraud to be shown in answer to reliance on the earlier decree, and limitation did not defeat the collateral challenge. The redemption decree in favour of the mortgagor was sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 06 May 1952 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282568