Fraud

Supreme Court e@Journal

www.PLRonline.in

Fraud - Cannot make a document void but only voidable - Deception or fraud or any other vitiating circumstance must be set forth in all its details the way the Civil Procedure Code lays down through Order 6 Rule 4 CPC - The burden of proof of showing a particular document as vitiated by the fraud shall be only on a person who takes a plea that it was so vitiated - The petitioner, who was alleging a case of fraud or deception, had to prove the same and if no evidence had been given by either party, Section 102 rules that the burden was not discharged - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 6 Rule 4 - Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) S. 101. (179) PLR
Fraud - Does not simply require allegations but the same requires proof of the same. (179) PLR
Fraud - Fraud and misrepresentation - There has to be specific pleading, much less evidence in this regard only then plaintiff would succeed in getting a relief. Limitation - Question of limitation can be raised at any stage even if, there is no issue, or any objection has not been taken in the plaint - Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) S. 3.(180) PLR
Fraud - If the appellants wanted to avoid the consequences of the judgment and decree - On the the premise of its being the result of fraud or collusion, they were required to raise such a plea in their defence - If they had raised such a plea and has been negatived by the courts, they are not entitled to agitate the same issue by filing an objection petition - On the contrary, if they have failed to raise such a plea which ought to have been raised by them, they are estopped by principle of constructive res judicata<D> to raise such a plea in the execution. (183) PLR
Fraud - Is alleged to have been played at the time of passing of the impugned decree - Person who had suffered during his life time - Did not challenge the said decree for a period of 7 years - Then other person cannot challenge the same on that ground - The ground of non-registration of a decree is available to the person who had suffered the same but not raised during his life time, then it is no more available to the other persons. (S.C.)(175) PLR
Fraud - It was a result of fraud and manipulation that the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant had claimed the ownership of the property which would not give any substantive right to the party - No length of period that may elapse would improve the situation where fraud is the foundation of any right as fraud vitiates everything from the very inception. (174) PLR
Fraud - No doubt that deceit was practiced on the Court at Kharar to obtain permission to sell the property making the child/ward a tool in the hands - Perhaps at the behest of the purchaser of the property - A vital fact was concealed from the Court of the pendency of an identical matter at Court in Sangrur - The decree/order obtained by deceit and fraud is a nullity and has no value in the eyes of law. (175) PLR
Fraud - Played upon a Court - A fraud is a species of conduct, so abhorent to the rule of law that such an order cannot be pressed into service and would not operate as resjudicata, even where it has been affirmed by a superior forum - An order obtained by fraud may, therefore, be challenged and provided fraud is proved, be ignored by the forum where the order is pressed into service in opposition to the rigths of parties. (175) PLR