https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299346 A tenant may independently challenge a partition decree on grounds of fraud or collusion where the decree affects the tenant's rights. Section 44 of the Indian Evidence Act permits such grounds to be raised even when a decree is relied on as evidence, so it does not bar an independent suit. Assessment records identifying a concern as an HUF supported a prima facie view that the property was treated as joint family property, and a coparcener may seek partition during the father's lifetime. However, no prima facie fraud or collusion was established, and the balance of convenience did not support staying eviction proceedings; interim relief was therefore refused. en-us Mon, 27 Jul 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Dec 2021 12:07:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299346 A tenant may independently challenge a partition decree on grounds of fraud or collusion where the decree affects the tenant's rights. Section 44 of the Indian Evidence Act permits such grounds to be raised even when a decree is relied on as evidence, so it does not bar an independent suit. Assessment records identifying a concern as an HUF supported a prima facie view that the property was treated as joint family property, and a coparcener may seek partition during the father's lifetime. However, no prima facie fraud or collusion was established, and the balance of convenience did not support staying eviction proceedings; interim relief was therefore refused. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 27 Jul 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299346