Decree obtained by Fraud

Decree obtained by fraud will be nullity if decreed to be nullified by the court of competent Jurisdiction

*In the case of A.V. Papayya Sastry & Ors vs Government Of A.P. & Ors on 7 March, 2007

It is thus settled proposition of law that a judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud on the Court, Tribunal or Authority is a nullity and non-est in the eye of law. Such a judgment, decree or order by the first Court or by the final Court has to be treated as nullity by every Court, superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any Court, at any time, in appeal, revision, writ or even in collateral proceedings. 

*In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by LRs. V. Jagannath (dead) by LRs. & Ors. (1994) 1 SCC 1 : JT 1994 (6) SC 331, this Court had an occasion to consider the doctrine of fraud and the effect thereof on the judgment obtained by a party. In that case, one A by a registered deed, relinquished all his rights in the suit property in favour of C who sold the property to B. Without disclosing that fact, A filed a suit for possession against B and obtained preliminary decree. During the pendency of an application for final decree, B came to know about the fact of release deed by A in favour of C. He, therefore, contended that the decree was obtained by playing fraud on the court and was a nullity. The trial court upheld the contention and dismissed the application. The High Court, however, set aside the order of the trial court, observing that "there was no legal duty cast

"The judiciary in India also possesses inherent power, specially under Section 151 C.P.C., to recall its judgment or order if it is obtained by Fraud on Court. In the case of fraud on a party to the suit or proceedings, the Court may direct the affected party to file a separate suit for setting aside the Decree obtained by fraud. Inherent powers are powers which are resident in all courts, especially of superior jurisdiction. These powers spring not from legislation but from the nature and the Constitution of the Tribunals or Courts themselves so as to enable them to maintain their dignity, secure obedience to its process and rules, protect its officers from indignity and wrong and to punish unseemly behaviour. This power is necessary for the orderly administration of the Court's business".

*In the case of Rajib Panda vs Lakhan Sendh Mahapatra And Ors. on 18 July, 1899

It was held that For the foregoing reasons I think the contention of the defendant that it is open to him in this case under Section 44 of the Evidence Act to show that the decree relied upon by the plaintiffs was obtained by fraud, is correct and ought to prevail, and the judgments of Mr. Justice Stevens and of the District Judge of Cuttack ought to be set aside and the case sent back to the District Judge for disposing of it after determining whether the decree relied upon by the plaintiffs was obtained by fraud, and if it was obtained by fraud, whether the tenancy set up by the defendant is established.

*In the case of Arunachalam Chetty vs Sabapathy Chetty on 28 March, 1917

It was held that Decree obtained by fraud has to be nullified through another decree by a civil court of competent jurisdiction. treat a decree obtained by fraud as a nullity when the impeachment of the decree arises incidentally or is only one of the reliefs prayed, and the jurisdiction of the Court where the impeachment of the decree is the sole object of the suit.

*In Shri Jiten Bhalla vs Ms.Gaytri Bajaj on 8 September, 2008

An order was passed u/s 151 CPC by the Addl. District Judge, setting aside a decree obtained by fraud

copyright©thelegaltrain