LexSANTOSH versus JAGAT RAM & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 2 S.C.R. 429 SANTOSH v. JAGAT RAM & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 1881 of 2008) FEBRUARY 8, 2010 (V.S. SIRPURKAR AND SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, JJ.] A B Suit - By widow, for declaration of her ownership in possession, of suit land, left behind by her deceased husband C - Plaintiff alleging that her earlier consent decree in favour of the defendants was the result of a fraud - Defendants denying the allegation and taking the plea that the suit was time-barred :-- Suit decreed - Decree set aside by first appellate court - Second appeal dismissed in limine - On D appeal, Held: Facts of the case prove that the consent decree was result of fraud, hence a nullity - The suit is also not barred by time - Limitation. Appellant filed the present suit in the year 1990, for E declaration to the effect that she was the owner in · possession of the land, left behind by her deceased husband; and that the decree dated 26.3.1985 shown to have been suffered by her in favour of the respondents- defendants was illegal, bad and was a result of fraud. Respondents-defendants contested the suit stating that F there was no question of fraud; and that the said decree was passed as per the family settlement. They also pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation. The Trial Court while decreeing the suit, returned a finding that the decree dated 26.3.1985 was a result of a fraud. The first G appellate court allowed the appeal holding that there was no fraud and the consent decree dated 26.3.1985 was a good and a valid decree. The first appellate court also held that the suit was barred by time. Second Appeal was 429 H 430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201.0] 2 S.C.R. A dismissed in limine by the High Court. The questions for consideration in this appeal were whether a fraud was played against the appellant for obtaining the decree dated 26.3.1985; and whether the 8 second suit filed by the appellant was within limitation. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The Trial Court, after correctly framing the issues, took the stock of all the four witnesses, namely, c Record Keeper (DW-1 ), Bailiff (DW-2), Advocate (DW-3) and father of the respondents-defendants (DW-4). The Court answered the issues in favour of the appellant, as regards (i) Ownership and joint possession of the suit land of the plaintiff. (ii) The decree dated 26.3.1985 being 0 nullity. (iii) Recording the mutation being illegal and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. [Para 9] [438-C-E] 1.2. Taking stock of the evidence, the trial court took note of the improved version on the part of DW-4 that the father of the appellant had demanded Rs.20,000/- and had E then agreed to give share of the deceased to the respondents-defendants and that the said amount was paid through cousin of DW-4. The trial court rightly noted that this was not only an improvement, but the person, through whom the amount was given, was never F examined. The trial court also referred to the admission by DW-4 that no money was ever given to the appellant for household expenses and that she had no source to maintain herself. From this, the trial court correctly deduced that the person .who is not having any source G to maintain himself/herself, could not part with his/her landed property as well in the manner that the appellant did. [Para 9] [438-F-H; 439-A] 1.3. The trial court noted the admissions by Advocate H (DW-3) to the effect that he and the appellant's advoc~te, SANTOSH v. JAGAT RAM & ANR. 431 in the earlier suit and for the respondents-defendants in A the present suit before the trial court, used to sit on the same seat and were the partners in the same profession having a common clerk. The trial court also noted the arguments on the side of the respondents to the effect that DW-4 was looking after the appellant and that the B appellant had filed a Written Statement in the first case, the contents of which were well known to I.er and that she admitted the same as correct, as asserted by DW-3, in his evidence. [Para 9] [439-A-C] 1.4. The trial court also noted the facts about the C Caveat having been filed by the respondents, the reply to which was filed by the appellant-plaintiff, wherein she had averred that she had voluntarily suffered the impugned judgment and decree and that she did not challenge the same. The trial court rightly found the story D of payment of Rs.20,000/- to be a myth, since it was no
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.