Summary
A suit challenging a final compensation-apportionment decree on fraud failed because the allegation of a collusive lease was neither adequately particularised nor established. The proposal, competitive auction and acceptance had received competent approvals, and possession, cultivation and payments were supported by records. The Court upheld dismissal of the suit, without reopening the correctness of the original 87:13 apportionment decree.
Issues
- Whether the final apportionment decree was shown to have been obtained through a collusive lease and fraud on the court.
Held
- The suit concerned alleged fraud in obtaining the final decree, rather than an appeal against the correctness of its compensation apportionment. Fraud had to be pleaded with necessary particulars and proved by cogent evidence; a vague allegation could not overcome the documentary record. (¶¶ 11, 12)
- All members approved the lease proposal, the Deputy Director approved successive steps, and a competitive auction resulted in acceptance of the highest bid. Records of possession, cultivation and payments contradicted the allegation that the lease was created solely in collusion with the former Pradhan. (¶¶ 11, 12)
- On the historical transaction and facts before it, the Court found support in precedents protecting possession under Section 53A where parties had acted upon an agreement despite absence of an executed and registered conveyance. The asserted absence of a formal lease did not establish the pleaded fraud. (¶ 12)
Result
Civil appeals dismissed; High Court judgment setting aside the decree in the fraud suit upheld. No order as to costs.