https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284036 The court dismissed the Revision seeking to set aside the sale based on fraud, concluding that the alleged Panchayat agreement was fabricated to delay the sale's execution. The judge emphasized the necessity of proving fraud clearly and specifically, highlighting that Section 18 of the Limitation Act applies only against the party guilty of fraud. The judgment clarified that fraud by either the decree-holder or the auction purchaser can trigger Section 18, leading to the dismissal of the Revision due to lack of evidence supporting the petitioner's claims. en-us Tue, 02 Jul 1957 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Oct 2019 11:43:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284036 The court dismissed the Revision seeking to set aside the sale based on fraud, concluding that the alleged Panchayat agreement was fabricated to delay the sale's execution. The judge emphasized the necessity of proving fraud clearly and specifically, highlighting that Section 18 of the Limitation Act applies only against the party guilty of fraud. The judgment clarified that fraud by either the decree-holder or the auction purchaser can trigger Section 18, leading to the dismissal of the Revision due to lack of evidence supporting the petitioner's claims. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 02 Jul 1957 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284036