D.Thangavel vs D.Rajammal
- Court
- Madras High Court
2026:MHC:4504
CRP No.6165 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT MADRAS
DATED: 04-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
CRP No. 6165 of 2026
and CMP.No.26685 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012272072026}
D.Thangavel
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. D.Rajammal
2. D.Dhanapal
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to set aside the compromise decree and
judgement dated 03.07.2025 made in I.A.No.2 of 2025 and O.S.No.97 of
2024 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Komarapalayam by
exercising the power conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.N.Manokaran
for Mr.D.Gopal
For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Marudhachalamurthy
__________
Page1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 01:32:55 pm )
2026:MHC:4504
CRP No.6165 of 2026
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the compromise
decree passed by the trial Court in final decree application in a partition
suit in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in O.S.No.97 of 2024 on the file of the District
Munsif Court, Komarapalayam.
2. According to the petitioner, the suit ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule
properties are ancestral and self acquired properties of his father
st
SN.Duraisamy. The 1 respondent is the mother of the petitioner and
second respondent is the brother of the petitioner. After the death of
st nd
SN.Duraisamy, the 1 respondent filed a suit for partition against the 2
respondent without impleading the petitioner herein. As per the plaint
averment, the said SN.Duraisamy during his lifetime executed a Will dated
20.10.2019 bequeathing the suit ‘A’ schedule property in favour of
respondents 1 and 2. It was also pleaded that SN.Duraisamy by another
Will dated 15.09.2020 bequeathed the suit ‘B’ schedule property in favour
of respondents 1 and 2. Thus, the respondents are claiming exclusive right
over both ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties under the Wills executed by
SN.Duraisamy.
__________
Page2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 01:32:55 pm )
2026:MHC:4504
CRP No.6165 of 2026
st
3. The 1 respondent filed a suit without impleading the petitioner
and got compromise decree. It is stated that as per the compromise decree,
nd
the entire properties have been given to the 2 respondent, the same has
been done without impleading the name of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the
compromise decree, the petitioner filed the instant Civil Revision Petition
to set aside the same on the ground that it was obtained by collusion and
fraud.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
vehemently contend that the respondents suppressed the existence of yet
another son of SN.Duraisamy namely the petitioner herein and obtained
compromise decree by playing fraud and collusion and suppressing
material facts. Therefore, according to him, the compromise decree
obtained by them is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel relied on
the judgment of Apex Court in Geeta Bai and others Vs. K.Arjun Singh
and others passed in SLP (Civil).No.20008 – 20010 of 2026.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit
that the above mentioned SN.Duraisamy executed two Wills bequeathing
the suit properties in favour of the respondents 1 and 2. Therefore,
according to him, the petitioner has no right or interest in the said
properties. In such circumstances, the learned counsel submitted that the
__________
Page3 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 01:32:55 pm )
2026:MHC:4504
CRP No.6165 of 2026
petitioner is not entitled to question the compromise decree entered
between the respondents 1 and 2.
6. It is seen from the plaint averment that the suit ‘A’ schedule
properties are ancestral properties of SN.Duraisamy, father of the
nd st
petitioner and the 2 respondent and husband of the 1 respondent. The
suit ‘B’ schedule properties are his self acquired properties. The above
said SN.Duraisamy died on 13.04.2021. The respondents relied on two
Wills allegedly executed by SN.Duraisamy in their favour dated
20.10.2019 and 15.09.2020.
7. The Will dated 20.10.2019 has been marked as Ex.A1 before the
trial Court. A perusal of the same would indicate that there is a reference
about the younger son of SN.Duraisamy namely the petitioner. Therefore,
st
as per the plaint document Ex.A1 filed by the 1 respondent,
SN.Duraisamy has got another son namely the petitioner. The validity of
the Wills allegedly executed by SN.Duraisamy shall be tested only in the
presence of all the legal heirs of SN.Duraisamy.
st
8. In the case on hand, the 1 respondent filed a collusive suit
suppressing the existence of another heir of SN.Duraisamy and relied on
the Wills and obtained a compromise decree. The averments found in the
__________
Page4 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 01:32:55 pm )
2026:MHC:4504
CRP No.6165 of 2026
plaint and the plaint documents would clearly establish that the petitioner
st
is a necessary party to the suit. The 1 respondent suppressed the existence
of another heir and obtained a decree so as to defeat his right. Therefore,
the contention of the petitioner that a fraud has been played by the
respondents is clearly established in the light of the averments found in the
plaint and also the plaint document marked as Ex.A1.
9. The Apex Court in Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. v. Raj Kumar
Rajinder Singh (Dead) through LRs, reported in 2019 (14) SCC 449 ,
after observing fraud vitiates every solemn act held that supervisory
jurisdiction of the Court can be exercised in case of error apparent on the
face of record, abuse of process and if the issues goes to the root of the
matter. The relevant observation reads as follows:
75. In A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P., (2007)
4 SCC 221, this Court as to the effect of fraud on the
judgment or order observed thus: (SCC pp.231 &236-
37, paras 21-22 & 38-39)
“21. Now, it is well-settled principle of law
that if any judgment or order is obtained by fraud,
it cannot be said to be a judgment or order in law.
Before three centuries, Chief Justice Edward
Coke proclaimed;
__________
Page5 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 01:32:55 pm )
2026:MHC:4504
CRP No.6165 of 2026
‘Fraud avoids all judicial acts,
ecclesiastical or temporal.’
22. It is thus settled proposition of law that a
judgment, decree or order obtained by playing
fraud on the Court, Tribunal or Authority is a
nullity and non-est in the eye of law. Such a
judgment, decree or order --by the first Court or
by the final Court-- has to be treated as nullity by
every Court, superior or inferior. It can be
challenged in any Court, at any time, in appeal,
revision, writ or even in collateral proceedings.
…….
38. The matter can be looked at from a
different angle as well. Suppose, a case is decided
by a competent Court of Law after hearing the
parties and an order is passed in favour of the
applicant/Plaintiff which is upheld by all the
courts including the final Court. Let us also think
of a case where this Court does not dismiss
Special Leave Petition but after granting leave
decides the appeal finally by recording reasons.
Such order can truly be said to be a judgment to
which Article 141 of the Constitution applies.
Likewise, the doctrine of merger also gets
attracted. All orders passed by the
courts/authorities below, therefore, merge in the
judgment of this Court and after such judgment, it
is not open to any party to the judgment to
approach any court or authority to review, recall
or reconsider the order.
__________
Page6 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 01:32:55 pm )
2026:MHC:4504
CRP No.6165 of 2026
39. The above principle, however, is subject to
exception of fraud. Once it is established that the
order was obtained by a successful party by
practising or playing fraud, it is vitiated. Such
order cannot be held legal, valid or in
consonance with law. It is non-existent and nonest
and cannot be allowed to stand. This is the
fundamental principle of law and needs no further
elaboration. Therefore, it has been said that a
judgment, decree or order obtained by fraud has
to be treated as nullity, whether by the court of
first instance or by the final court. And it has to be
treated as nonest by every Court, superior or
inferior.
Supervisory jurisdiction of the court can be exercised in
case of error apparent on the face of the record, abuse of
process and if the issue goes to the root of the matter.
10. The Apex Court in State of The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr
vs T.Suryachandra Rao reported in 2005 (6) SCC 149 , while explaining
the expression “fraud” observed that a collusion or conspiracy with a view
to deprive the rights of the others in relation to a property would render
the transaction void ab initio . The relevant observation reads as follows:
10. "Fraud" as is well known vitiates every solemn act. Fraud
and justice never dwell together. Fraud is a conduct either by
letter or words, which includes the other person or authority to
__________
Page7 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 01:32:55 pm )
2026:MHC:4504
CRP No.6165 of 2026
take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct
of the former either by words or letter. It is also well settled that
misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. Indeed, innocent
misrepresentation may also give reason to claim relief against
fraud. A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and
consists in leading a man into damage by willfully or recklessly
causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law
if a party makes representations, which he knows to be false, and
injury enures therefrom although the motive from which the
representations proceeded may not have been bad. An act of
fraud on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion or
conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of the others in
relation to a property would render the transaction void ab
initio. Fraud and deception are synonymous. Although in a given
case a deception may not amount to fraud, fraud is anathema to
all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot
be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable
doctrine including res judicata. (See Ram Chandra Singh v.
Savitri Devi and Ors. (2003) 8 SCC 319)
11. In Geeta Bai case cited supra, the Apex Court held that a
compromise decree obtained by the brothers, without impleading
necessary party to the suit, was a nullity in the eyes of law. The relevant
observation reads as follows:
12. The compromise decree obtained by the brothers/legal
heirs being the plaintiffs and the defendants without
impleading Late Smt. Ballo Bai or her legal heirs, despite her
__________
Page8 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 01:32:55 pm )
2026:MHC:4504
CRP No.6165 of 2026
being a necessary party to the suit, was a nullity in the eyes of
law.
12. In the case on hand, as discussed earlier original owner
nd st
Duraisamy [father of petitioner and 2 respondent and husband of 1
respondent] died. He allegedly executed two Wills bequeathing suit
st nd st
properties to the 1 respondent and 2 respondent. The 1 respondent filed
nd
a collusive suit for partition against one of her son 2 respondent without
st
impleading her other son 1 petitioner. She relied on the Will which
disinherit one of the son namely, the petitioner. The validity of the Will
st
has to be tested in the presence of the petitioner. In the plaint, the 1
respondent did not whisper about existence of another son (the petitioner).
Hence, the motive behind non-impleadment is clearly to defeat the right of
the petitioner. During the course of arguments of Civil Revision Petition,
the petitioner’s status as son of Duraisamy was not disputed. In fact,
Ex.A1 Will relied on by the respondents refers about existence of another
son, namely the petitioner. In view of admitted position and also in the
light of facts established by averment in plaint and Ex.A1, Will, this Court
feels it is a fit case to exercise the supervisory power under Article 227 of
Constitution of India, as respondents suppressed material facts, abused
process of Court and obtained a collusive compromise decree without
impleading necessary party, whose rights are seriously affected by
compromise decree. In normal course, I would have relegated the
__________
Page9 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 01:32:55 pm )
2026:MHC:4504
CRP No.6165 of 2026
petitioner to explore other options available to him before the trial Court or
Appellate Court. In the undisputed facts narrated above the collusion to
defeat the rights of the petitioner is so apparent and hence I am inclined to
exercise supervisory power.
13. In the light of the above discussion, the compromise decree
obtained by the respondents 1 and 2 is found to be collusive and the same
is vitiated by suppression of material facts. Hence, the judgment and
decree impugned in this revision are set aside and the Civil Revision
Petition stands allowed and the matter is remitted back to the trial Court
st
with liberty to the 1 respondent to implead the petitioner as party
defendant and proceed with the suit in accordance with law. The first
respondent has to file necessary impleading petition within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case, the first
respondent failed to file necessary application for impleading the
petitioner, within the time stipulated, the suit shall stand automatically
dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
04-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
ub
__________
Page10 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 01:32:55 pm )
2026:MHC:4504
CRP No.6165 of 2026
To
The District Munsif Court,
Komarapalayam.
__________
Page11 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 01:32:55 pm )
2026:MHC:4504
CRP No.6165 of 2026
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
ub
CRP No. 6165 of 2026
04-11-2026
__________
Page12 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 01:32:55 pm )