Allowed¶44

Vasuki v. a.G.Subramaniam

Madras HC8 Jun 2026SA/1093/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Fraud on court; decree obtained by suppression of material facts; nullity of decree; third-party challenge to decree despite not being party; locus standi; ex parte permanent injunction decree O.S. No.337 of 1995; sale agreements held forged and fabricated; specific performance suits O.S. Nos.142-144 of 1994 dismissed; Exhibits A3-A5 title deeds; Section 100 CPC second appeal; High Court of Judicature at Madras; T.V.ThamilSelvi J.; appeal allowed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Second Appeal allowed; findings of the first appellate Court in A.S. No.19 of 2007 set aside and findings of the trial Court in O.S. No.42 of 2005 sustained; no order as to costs. ¶44

Vasuki Vs a.G.Subramaniam — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Second Appeal allowed; findings of the first appellate Court in A.S. No.19 of 2007 set aside and findings of the trial Court in O.S. No.42 of 2005 sustained; no order as to costs.

¶44

Issue for consideration

Substantial question of law A: whether a decree obtained by fraud played on the court is a nullity and non est in law, which can either be ignored or challenged not only by a person claiming through a party to such suit but also by a third party. +2 more

¶103

Court's answer

Once it is established that a decree has been obtained by fraud practised upon the Court, the same can be questioned and set aside at any stage of the proceedings.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

Though a decree ordinarily cannot be challenged by way of a separate suit, an exception is recognized when such decree has been obtained by fraud practised upon the Court; the principle squarely applies to the facts of this case.

¶37

Key takeaways

After his specific performance suits were dismissed and the sale agreements declared invalid, false and fabricated, the defendant suppressed the earlier proceedings and findings and thereby fraudulently obtained the ex parte decree in O.S. No.337 of 1995; such conduct amounts to abuse of the process of Court.ratio¶32
Even a third party is entitled to challenge a decree when it is shown that the same was obtained by fraud practised upon the Court; merely because the plaintiffs were third parties to the earlier decree their right to challenge cannot be denied when fraud is specifically pleaded and established. Substantial questions of law A and B are answered in favour of the appellant.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court, Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC (SA No.1093 of 2008, decided 08.06.2026, T.V.ThamilSelvi J.). The defendant had obtained an ex parte decree for permanent injunction in O.S. No.337 of 1995 claiming possession on the strength of sale agreements executed by Kamalammal, although those very agreements had already been held forged and fabricated and his specific performance suits O.S. Nos.142, 143 and 144 of 1994 (appeals A.S. Nos.292 and 293 of 1998) dismissed. Held: (i) once it is established that a decree was obtained by fraud practised upon the Court, it can be questioned and set aside at any stage; (ii) though a decree ordinarily cannot be challenged by a separate suit, fraud practised upon the Court is a recognised exception; (iii) even a third party who was not a party to the earlier suit may challenge the decree when fraud is specifically pleaded and established, particularly where the challenger proves title under valid sale deeds (Exhibits A3 to A5). Substantial questions of law A and B answered in favour of the appellant; trial Court findings sustained, first appellate Court findings set aside; Second Appeal allowed, no costs.