A decree obtained by suppressing a prior binding judgment is vitiated by fraud.

The suit property was purchased in 1959 by Chandulal Tribhovandas Patel, the appellants’ father and the plaintiff’s father-in-law.

The plaintiff claimed that Chandulal executed a Will dated 03 June 2002 in favour of his wife, defendant No.1, and that, after Chandulal’s death on 05 September 2004, defendant No.1 became the owner of the property.

Defendant No.1 thereafter executed a registered Gift Deed in favour of the plaintiff on 22 March 2007, following which the society transferred the property to the plaintiff’s name.

The plaintiff filed Civil Suit No.539 of 2008 seeking a declaration of ownership and a permanent injunction against defendants Nos.2 to 4.

Defendants Nos.1 and 4 admitted the plaint allegations, while defendants Nos.2 and 3 contested the claim. Their right to cross-examine the plaintiff was closed, and the trial proceeded ex parte against defendants Nos.1 to 4.

The City Civil Court decreed the suit on 20 April 2019, holding that the Will and Gift Deed had been proved.

In appeal, it emerged that, before the decree in Civil Suit No.539 of 2008, the same court had decreed Civil Suit No.1750 of 2007 on 27 January 2010 and declared both the Will and the Gift Deed illegal, null and void.

The plaintiff had been a party to that earlier suit but had not disclosed the earlier judgment in Civil Suit No.539 of 2008.

Whether the judgment and decree in Civil Suit No.539 of 2008 were liable to be set aside because the plaintiff suppressed the earlier judgment declaring the Will and Gift Deed null and void and thereby obtained the decree by fraud?

Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a declaration of ownership and permanent injunction on the basis of the Will and Gift Deed?

The appeal was considered under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which permits an appeal from an original decree.

The Court applied the principle that a litigant must approach the court with clean hands and must disclose material facts and documents relevant to the adjudication.

A decree obtained by deliberate suppression or fraud cannot be sustained.

Relying on S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1, the Court reiterated that fraud is deliberate deception intended to secure an unfair advantage, and that a person who withholds a vital document or material fact to obtain an advantage is guilty of fraud on the court and the opposing party.

The Court therefore treated a decree obtained by suppression of a prior adjudication on the same instruments as liable to be set aside.

Although the trial court relied on the Will and Gift Deed and granted the plaintiff declaratory and injunctive relief, those instruments had already been declared null and void by a competent coordinate court in Civil Suit No.1750 of 2007.

The plaintiff was a party to the earlier proceeding and was aware of that decree, yet failed to disclose it while prosecuting Civil Suit No.539 of 2008.

Applying the clean-hands principle and the rule in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu, the High Court held that the subsequent decree had been obtained by suppression of a material fact and fraud on the court.

Since the earlier decree directly invalidated the very documents on which the plaintiff’s claim was founded, the later decree could not stand.

The appeal was allowed; the judgment and decree dated 20 April 2019 were quashed and set aside, and Civil Suit No.539 of 2008 was dismissed.

No costs were imposed, and a decree was directed to be drawn and the record returned to the trial court.