How to deal with a decree obtained in fraudulent manner?
Arul Manickam
(Querist) 07 June 2010
This query is : Resolved
A has a land admeasuring 73 cents, which he has bought in 1951. He gets into an agreement with B to plot out his entire land into 8 hosing plots and sell them. B has to pay at the rate of Rs.500/plot. B can make the payment as he sells the plot. But whole transaction must be over in 6 mpnths.B can sell only one plot in 3 months. The plot 1 has been sold. A executes the sale deed in favour of the purcahser of Plot No.1 with endorsement of B. Now B enters into an agreement with C to sell the remaining plots. A endorses that agreemnt. Now C brings on D for the purchase of the plot 2. A executes the sale deed in favour of D. In the recitals it is mentioned that D came through C and the parent documents are with C and D can have the copies from him. C also signs as witness to the transaction.It happens in 1973. After a year C files specific performance suit against A and B. He includes purchasers of other plots too as defendants. He does not include purchasers of plot.nos 1 and 2. In 1980 the lower court issues decree against the defendants. After that one of the aggrieved subsequent purchasers appeals against the exparte order passed against him by th elower court. The High Court rejects the appeal. Interesting part of the story starts now. The nominees of Decree holder files the EP for the original 73 cents. The Execution court executes sale deed on behalf of the Judgement Debtors. Mean while the D buyer of the Plot No.2 who is not the party in the case sells his plot to E , my client in 2006. The Exec.Court execute sale deed in 2007 for 73 cents. Using that sale deed now the nominees of the Decree holder manage to obtain the injunction to E. I request the expert to suggest the best remedy available for my client.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 07 June 2010
Your client should bring all the facts before the executing court and should insist that executing court cannot go behind the decree itself wherein plot no. 1 & 2 are not its part. Stay order should be got vacated.
