My Palace Mutually Aided Cooperative Society v. B. Mahesh (2022)
Facts
- It deals with a long-drawn litigation over the partition of properties belonging to the Nawab of Asman Jahi Paigah.
- The original suit for partition was filed in 1953, and a preliminary decree was passed by the court.
- The appellant, My Palace Mutually Aided Cooperative Society, was found to be the owner of the property through an Assignment Deed executed by a predecessor-in-interest.
- In 2013, the trial court passed a final decree in favor of the appellant. However, this decree was later recalled by the High Court, which determined that it had been obtained through the suppression of material facts. The recall was made under the inherent powers conferred by Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
- The recall application was filed by B. Mahesh and others in December 2020, which claimed that the final decree had been fraudulently obtained in light of the non-disclosure of previous judicial orders not in favor of the appellant.
Issues
1. Weather a third party, who was not a party to the original suit but is affected by the judgment, has the right to appeal against such a decree.
2. Whether a final decree could be recalled on the ground that it had been obtained by fraudulent means, specifically on the ground of the suppression of material facts.
3. Whether the High Court was justified in exercising its powers under Section 151 of the CPC to recall the final decree, especially when the decree was obtained fraudulently.
Judgment
- The Court held that a third party, who is affected by the judgment but was not originally a party to the suit, has the right to appeal. The Court clarified that such a right exists in situations where the third party is prejudiced by the decision and the circumstances justify their involvement in challenging the judgment.
- The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court to recall the final decree, ruling that the appellant had suppressed material information regarding earlier orders that were adverse to their claim. The Court observed that this suppression of relevant facts amounted to an improper conduct on the part of the appellant and warranted the recall of the decree to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
- The Court clarified that under the provisions of Section 151 of the CPC, the courts are conferred with the authority to recall or review their judgments where these have been obtained through fraud or misrepresentation. In this case, the courts exercise inherent jurisdiction in correcting any such wrong, more so if it appears that a party has obtained a decree by hiding important facts or fraudulent acts.
- The Supreme Court made clear that although the recall of the final decree was justified on grounds of fraud, such a recall does not automatically resolve issues of title. The parties were directed to pursue their claims through appropriate civil proceedings, where the merits of their respective ownership claims could be adjudicated.
