TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 1736
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssed with costs of Rs. 25,000/-. 2. Respondent No. 1, Pushparani Jain (Pushparani) was allotted Plot No. 251 in Major Shopping Centre Zone-II, Habibganj, Bhopal under Scheme No. 13 of the Bhopal Development Authority (for short BDA). Since she was a resident of the United States of America and had some difficulty in completing the formalities with regard to the allotment, she appointed her brother Jinendra Jain as her attorney on or about 28th August, 1981. This was communicated by her to the Chairman of the BDA by a letter of the same date. 3. On the basis of the communication sent by Pushparani to the BDA, and on the basis of the Power of Attorney given by her to Jinendra Jain, she was able to obtain possession of the plot allotted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rani and the other by Makhija were taken up and heard together. By a judgment and decree dated 4th October, 1999 the suit filed by Pushparani was decreed with the result that the agreement for sale dated 16th October, 1988 was declared to be illegal. It was also decreed that Makhija shall handover possession of the suit property to Pushparani and pay monthly compensation of Rs. 5,000/- per month. The suit filed by Makhija was dismissed. 8. Feeling aggrieved by the result of the two suits mentioned above, Makhija preferred two appeals before the High Court being F.A. No. 607 of 1999 and F.A. No. 638 of 1999 challenging the decree granted in favour of Pushparani and the dismissal of his suit. 9. During the pendency of the aforesaid appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct of the suit property. According to the averment made in the application, Jinendra Jain had moved the application before the BDA on 1st June, 1983. 10. By a judgment and order dated 13th September, 2002 the High Court dismissed both the appeals filed by Makhija as well as the application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. While dismissing the appeals and the application, the High Court held that no document was produced before the Trial Court to establish that Pushparani had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of Jinendra Jain on 30th April, 1983. The High Court also noted that according to Makhija what was produced before the BDA as the Power of Attorney dated 30th April, 1983 was in fact a photocopy of the all....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f 2010 in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The appeal was taken up for consideration by the High Court and by judgment and order dated 3rd April, 2012 (impugned) the appeal was dismissed. The High Court took the view that the alleged Power of Attorney dated 30th April, 1983 could not be accepted as a valid piece of documentary evidence being a certified copy of a photocopied document. It was also held that Makhija had an opportunity to raise the same issue when the application for leading additional evidence was filed but did not do so and cannot have a second shot for the same purpose. The allegation of fraud leveled by Makhija was not accepted by the High Court. 14. Learned Counsel for Makhija raised quite a few submissions before us ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of specific performance in respect of that agreement. 17. Through a collateral attack, Makhija has now sought to deprive Pushparani of her allotment of the suit property by alleging that she had concealed the Power of Attorney executed by her in favour of Jinendra Jain on 30th April, 1983 and had thereby committed a fraud on the courts. 18. We have been taken through the plaint filed by Makhija in Suit No. 471-A of 2008 and find that he has nowhere made any specific allegation of a fraud having been played by Pushparani on the Trial Court while obtaining the decree dated 4th October, 1999. 19. During the course of submissions, it was contended on behalf of Makhija that it is a settled proposition of law that a decree obtained by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uld not render a decree obtained by a party as fraudulent. To conclude in a blanket manner that in every case where relevant facts are not disclosed, the decree obtained would be fraudulent, is stretching the principle to a vanishing point. 22. What is fraud has been adequately discussed in Meghmala and Ors. v. G. Narasimha Reddy and Ors. (2010) 8 SCC 383 (paragraphs 28 to 36) Unfortunately, this decision does not refer to earlier decisions where also there is an equally elaborate discussion on fraud. These two decisions are Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 605 and State of Orissa and Ors. v. Harapriya Bisoi (2009) 12 SCC 378. In view of the elaborate discussion in these and several other cases which h....