LexSMT. BADAMI (DECEASED) BY HER L.R. versus BHALI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 6 S.C.R. 75 SMT. BADAMI (DECEASED) BY HER L.R. v. BHALI (Civil Appeal No. 1723 of 2008) MAY 22, 2012. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] SUIT: A B Fraudulent suit - Suits for permanent injunction and c possession - Based on an earlier compromise decree - Held: All facets of fraud get attracted to the case at hand - A rustic and illiterate woman is taken to court by a relation on the plea of creation of a lease deed and magically in a hurried manner the plaint is presented, written statement is drafted and filed, D statement is recorded and a decree is passed within three days - It not only gives rise to a doubt but indicates that there is some kind of foul play - However, the trial judge who decreed the first suit on 27. 11. 1973 did not look at these aspects as also the requirement of 0. 10, r.1, CPC - The E judgment is vitiated by fraud - When the subsequent suits were filed, the courts below routinely followed the principles relating to consent decree and did not dwell deep to find out how the fraud was manifestly writ large - The foundation was a family arrangement, which was not bona fide - No iota of F evidence has been brought on record that the plaintiff had given anything to the defendant in the arrangement - It is a matter of record that the possession was not taken over and inference has been drawn that possibly there was an implied agreement that the decree would be given effect to after her death - All these reasonings are absolutely non-plausible and G common sense does not even remotely give consent to them - The whole thing was buttressed on the edifice of fraud - The impugned judgments and decrees are set aside - As a natural corollary, the judgment and decree dated 27. 11. 1973 is also 75 H 76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R. A set aside - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - 0.10, r. 1 and 0. 15, r. 1. DEEDS AND DOCUMENTS: Family arrangement - Held.· Though, a family 8 arrangement need not be construed narrowly and it need not be registered, but it must prima facie appear to be genuine which is not so in the case at hand - That apart, there was no reason to exclude the daughter and the son-in-law - It is impossible to perceive any dispute over any property or the C possibility of it in future - On the contrary, in this so called family settlement the whole property of the defendant is given to the plaintiff - It cannot be accepted to be a bona fide settlement. o The plaintiff and the original defendant's late husband were the descendants of a common ancestor. In a prior arrangement, the said defendant got a share in the ancestral property. The plaintiff, on 24.11.1973 filed suit No. 1422 of 1973 stating that the defendant, under a E family settlement dated 1.6.1972 gave her whole share to the plaintiff and also handed over the possession thereof to him, but since the revenue entries continued to be in her name and there was interference with plaintiff's possession over the suit land, the suit for declaration and F permanent injunction was ,filed. On the date of presentation of the plaint itself, the written statement was filed admitting the plaint averment to be correct and praying for decree of the suit. The suit was decreed on 27 .11.1973. It was the case of the plaintiff that the revenue entries continued to be in the name of the defendant and G she remained in possession of the suit property. He filed Civil Suit No. 401 of 1984 for permanent injunction against the defendant restraining her from alienating the suit land. He also filed Civil Suit No. 784 of 1984 for possession. The defendant contested both the suits but her stand that H the decree dated 27.11.1973 was obtained by fraud was BADAMI (DECEASED) BY HER L.R. v. BHALI 77 not accepted and the suits were decreed. Her appeals A were also dismissed. During the pendency of the second appeals filed by the original defendant, she died and the name of her daughter was substituted. The second appeals were also dismissed holding that the original defendant had failed to discharge the onus that the initial B decree dated 27.11.1973 was obtained by fraud. Aggrieved, the daughter of the original defendant filed the appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court c HELD: 1.1. Rule 1 of 0. 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides for ascertainment whether allegations in pleadings are admitted or denied. It stipulates that "at the first hearing"
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.