S.P. CHENGALVARAYA NAIDU (DEAD) BY L.RS. versus JAGANNATH (DEAD) BY L.RS. AND ORS

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 422 · Decided: 27-10-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH, P.B. SAWANT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
S.P. CHENGALVARAYA NAIDU (DEAD) BY L.RS. 
v . 
.JAGANNATH (DEAD) BY L.RS. AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 27, 1993 
B 
[KULDIP SINGH AND P.B. SAWANT, JJ.) 
«, 
Practice & Procedur~ourt Proceedings--Non-production or non-
mentioning of vital document in order to gain advantage-Litigant guilty of 
playing fraud on the Court and the opposite party-Such a litigant has no 
C right to approach the Court. 
One 'J', predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, purchased at 
Court auction certain properties which belonged to the appellan~, on 
behalf of his employer 'C', the decree-holder. Subsequently 'J' relinquished 
all his rights in the said property in favour of 'C. Meanwhile the a}>pel-
D lants, judgment-debtors paid the total decretal amount to 'C'. Having 
received the decretal amount, 'C' was not entitled to the property which he 
purchased through 'J'. But without disclosing the relinquishment deed 
executed in favour of 'C', the said 'J' filed a suit for partition of the 
property and obtained a preliminary decree. 
E 
F 
Only during the hearing for final decree, the appellants came to 
know about the release deed and challenged the application on the ground 
of no1t1-disclosure of the release deed, as it amounted to fraud. The Trial 
Judge dismissed the application for grant of final decree. The plaintiff's' 
appeal against this order having been allowed by the High Court, the 
defendant preferred the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The courts of law are meant for imparting justice 
between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean-
G hands. More often than not, process of the court is being abused. Proper-
ty-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan dodgers and other unscrupulous 
persons from all walks of life find the court-process a convenient lever to 
retain the illegal· gains indefinitely. A person, whose case is based on 
falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown 
H out at any stage of the litigation. (426-H, 427-A] 
422 
CHENGALVARAYANAIDUv.JAGANNATII[KULDIPSINGH,J.) 423 
1.2. In the instant casei the non-production and even non-mentioning A 
-of the release deed at the trial tantamounts to playing fraud on the court. 
The High Court was not correct in its view that the appellants-defendants 
could have easily produced the certified copy of the registered release deed 
and non-suited the plaintiff. A litigant, who approaches the Court, is 
bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are reievant B 
to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain ad-
vantage then he would be guilty or playing fraud on the court as well as on 
the opposite party. (427-D-E-F] 
-~ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 994 of 
1972. 
c: 
From the Judgment and order dated 18.4.1967 of the Madras High 
Court in Appeal No. 347 of 1962. 
Ms. Lily Thomas for the Appellants. 
A.T.M. Sampath and Ms. Pushpa Rangam for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D 
KULDIP SINGH, J. "Fraud-avoids all judicial acts, acclesiastical or 
temporal" observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three E 
centuries ago. It is the settled proposition of law that a judgment or decree 
obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and nbnest in the eyes 
of law. Such a judgment/decree - by the first court or by the highest court 
- has to be treated as a nullity by every court, whether superior or inferior. 
It can be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings. 
Predecessor-in-interest of the respondents-plaintiffs filed application 
for final decree for partition and separate possession of the plaint -
properties and for mesne profits. The appellants-defendants contested the 
application on the ground that the preliminary decree, which was sought 
F 
to be made final, was obtained by fraud and, as such, the application was 
liable to be dismissed. The trial Judge accepted the contention and dis- G 
missed the application for grant of final decree. The respondents-plaintiffs 
went in appeal before the High Court. A Division Bench of the High Court 
went through plethora of case - law and finally allowed the appeal and set 
aside the order of the trial court. This appeal is by way of certificate 
granted by the High Court. 
-
H 
A 
B 
424 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
One Jagannath was the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. 
He was working as a clerk with one Chunilal Sowcar. J
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.