Author: -Syed Ahmed Husain, Student of 3rd year 5th semester B.Com. LL.B. at IME Law College
Introduction: –
The case titled as Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Savitri Devi and Ors heard and decided by the Supreme Court of India on 3rd September, 2003, stands as a landmark judgment that address the problems around the concept of “fraud on the court”. The case circulates around the alleged fraud activities by the respondents that corrupts the judicial proceedings that leads to countless appeals and revisions. Key issues include the validity of decrees obtained through fabricated submissions, the inherent powers of court to correct such injustices, and the impact of these fraud practices on the working of the justice.
The primary parties involved were Arun Prakash Pandey who was the mortgagor, State bank of India as the Plaintiff and Ram Chandra Singh and Savitri Devi as respondents, with the High Court of Patna being the appellate body prior to reaching the Apex Court.
Facts of the case (High Court of Patna): –
Respondent No. 2, Arun Prakash Pandey (herein defined as ‘the Mortgagor’) took a loan from State Bank of India, and mortgaged his land in favour of the bank. He then became a defaulter in the issue regarding the repayment of loan so the Bank filed a suit claiming a sum of Rs. 1,15,312,62 with preceding and future interest as also for a preliminary decree as regard mortgaged property admeasuring 95.20 acres. In the above-mentioned suit, the sisters of the mortgager claimed 6 annas shares in the suit properties purporting to be relying on or o the basis of a preliminary decree passed in a partition suit dated 19.8.1979 filed by the respondent No.1 in relation to the above-mentioned land. The High Court of Patna then passed a preliminary decree ordering the respondents for the payment of the aforementioned amount with pendente-lite and future interest i.e. 6% p.a. to the Bank.
The Appeal: –
An appeal was filed in the Supreme Court challenging the preliminary decree passed by the High Court of Patna in the above-mentioned case, titled as Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Savitri Devi and Ors and the same was heard by the Supreme Court of India on 9th October, 2003. The case involved a dispute over the eligibility regarding CENVAT credit of duty on the basis of invoices issued by dealers.
Issues: –
Effect of fraud on court is the primal question involved in this appeal which arise out of judgments and orders dated 10.12.1998 passed by the High Court of Patna. A preliminary decree for the payment of the remaining amount to the bank was passed along-with a preliminary decree of sale of 10 annas shares of the mortgager by the learned Vth Additional Sub Judge and then, a final decree for the sale of the mortgage property was passed on 4.8.1982.
Petitioner’s arguments: –
The appellant submitted that after obtaining the possession, he made the land cultivable for which he had spent a sum of about Rs. 2,00,000. Dr. G.C. Bharuka, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that the respondents, who are alleged to have obtained the decree by practicing fraud on the court, should not be allowed to take the benefit thereof. Keeping in mind the fact that the father of the mortgagor died in the year 1944, the learned counsel argued that the question of his sisters becoming his co-sharers did not arise as the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 did not come to force at that time. The learned counsel also submitted that although an appeal was preferred from the preliminary decree passed in favor of the bank, with no stay being granted, the property could be put on auction and even due to the certain mistakes on the part of the court, the appellant cannot suffer thereof. Therefore, the judgment and order dated 27.8.1988 setting aside the auction sale due to the sisters being the co-sharers, the learned counsel would contend, must be held to be illegal. The learned counsel also argued that such type of order could not have been passed on compromise of the parties as the properties that are to be sold on auction, the appellant has a right on any such property. Thus, in any event, the learned counsel contended, as the parties have taken recourse to suppression of the aforementioned facts, the decree was a nullity and in that view of the matter, the Patna High Court should have got its earlier order reviewed.
Respondents’ arguments: –
Mr. Ram Lal Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand urged that the appellant herein having not questioned the judgment and decree that was passed in the first appeal, such an appeal should not be entertained. Mr. Roy would submit that having regard to the fact that the auction sale was set aside as far back as on 21.5.1992 and the Special Leave Petition filed thereagainst which was dismissed by the Court of law, made the review application non-maintainable. Under any circumstances, the learned counsel contended that as pursuant to and in future reference of the consent order passed in first appeal, the respondents having being deposited the amount, this Court in working of its jurisdiction should not interfere with the vague orders.
What happened in the case? –
- Ram Chandra Singh, the appellant, simply argued that the preliminary decree was fraudulent and deceiving.
- The appellant claim was that the mortgagor’s father, Ugam Prakash Pandey, died in 1944 which was before the Hindu Succession Act 1956 came into effect.
- The appellant also argued that the mortgagor inherited the properties alone and his sisters didn’t
- The appellant filed documents as evidence of his claims.
Judgment: –
The Apex Court carefully examined the allegations that the High Court of Patna noticed in its proceedings and passed the decrees based on fraudulent proceedings. The appellant said that the preliminary decree and following actions were declared null due to fraudulent misinterpretations and compromise among the parties involved. The High Court did set aside certain auction sales and changed the decrees without correctly addressing the fraud claims made thereto. The Supreme Court held in its judgment that the fraud made to the court nullifies all judicial acts derived from it and such fraudulent decrees are void ab initio. Hence, the Court set aside the impugned High Court judgments, directing that the facts be reconsidered afresh, making sure that the fraudulent actions do not interfere with the quest for justice.
Legal Reasoning: –
The Supreme Court explained the principle that fraud simply takes away the piousness of the judicial proceedings, believing that any decree passed through a fraudulent way is void ab initio. The Apex Court emphasised the Court’s inherent power to declare such decrees null and void under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), further emphasising that these powers are necessary to maintain the integrity and effectiveness of the legal system.
The Court studied some instances where the High Court of Patna had failed to correctly specify the fraud allegations that resulted in decrees that promoted injustice. By bringing into notice the precedents, the Supreme Court showed that the principles governing fraud on the court are established in a very well manner and the suppression of facts or collusion to obtain favourable judgments are intolerable.
Further, the Court put light on the importance of equitable principles in deciding such matters, by making sure that no party benefits from deceit. The disapproval to adhere to these principles not only invalidates the decrees but also exploits the broader administration of justice.
Conclusion: –
The Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi and Others serves as an important point in Indian jurisprudence concerning fraud on the court. By unambiguously stating that any decree obtained through fraudulent means is void, the Court holds the sanctity of the legal system and ensures that justice wins against deceit. The pronouncement of the judiciary’s inherent powers gives power to the courts to act decisively against fraud, hence, safeguarding the rights of aggrieved parties and maintaining public trust in the legal framework.
The judgment not only gives clarity on the legal stance on fraudulent activities withing the proceedings but also sets a rigid precedent for future cases, making sure that the principles of honesty are taken care within the legal process.
