[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Most. Nunu Devi And Ors vs Rabindra Kumar Singh on 11 December, 2025
Author: Khatim Reza
Bench: Khatim Reza
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3325 of 2016
In
FIRST APPEAL No.119 of 1993
======================================================
1. Most. Nunu Devi, W/o Late Ramtanuk Singh, R/o village - Ratanpur
Municipal Area, P.S. and District-Begusarai
2. Arvind Singh
3. Madho Singh @ Kumar Madhwan
4. Shambhu Singh @ Shambhu Kumar
5. Ranjeet Singh, All sons of Late Ramtanuk Singh, R/o village - Ratanpur
Municipal Area, P.S. and District-Begusarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Rabindra Kumar Singh, S/o Late Kari Singh both residents of village -
Ratanpur, Ward No. 9, within Municipal Area - Begusarai, District -
Begusarai
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, Adv.
Ms. Vagisha Pragya Vacaknavi, Adv.
Ms. Saatvika Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pramod Kr. Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Arvind Kr. Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Chetan Kumar Adv.
Mr. Ankit Kumar, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 11-12-2025
Heard Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for
the petitioners and Mr. Pramod Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for
the opposite parties.
2. This application has been filed for recalling the
judgment dated 24.06.2015 passed in First Appeal No. 119 of 1993
by a Bench of this Court and also judgment and decree dated
30.01.1993
passed by the learned Sub-Judge-Ist, Begusarai in Title
Patna High Court MJC No.3325 of 2016 dt.11-12-2025
Suit No. 96 of 1985 as both the judgments and decree were
obtained by playing fraud upon this Court. The fraud has been
played upon the Trial Court and the petitioners as well by making
false statements/deliberately suppressing the material facts that the
families of the parties to the suit are joint although the families of
the parties to the suit were separated by partitioning the joint
family property by metes and bounds, which has been admitted by
opposite party no. 2 in the recitals of the sale deeds executed after
passing of the judgment dated 24.06.2015 passed in F.A. No. 119
of 1993.
3. The defendants/respondents are petitioners in the
present application and the plaintiffs/appellants are opposite
parties in the present case.
4. The partition suit was filed by the plaintiffs/opposite
parties for partition with respect to their half share in the joint
family property mentioned in Schedule-I and that a separate takhta
be carved out through survey knowing Commissioner as well as to
declare the alleged deed of gift dated 08.11.1984 purported to have
been executed by Ram Sagar Singh (defendant no. 1) in favour of
defendant nos. 2 to 6 as null and void, which confers no title and
possession of the alleged donee and further claim for a decree for
Patna High Court MJC No.3325 of 2016 dt.11-12-2025
accounting the income of the joint family property directing
defendant no. 1 to furnish account as well as the cost of the suit.
5. The First Appeal was preferred against the judgment
and preliminary decree dated 30.01.1993 passed by the learned
Sub-Judge-Ist, Begusarai in Title Suit No. 96 of 1985, whereby,
the suit filed by the plaintiffs was partly decreed declaring one-
third share of the plaintiffs described in Schedule-I of the plaint
and the gift deed executed by Ram Sagar Singh (defendant no. 1)
in favour of defendant nos. 2 to 6 was declared valid.
6. After hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court
partly decreed the suit granting one-third share in the immovable
properties described in Schedule-I of the plaint. It was held that
there was no partition by metes and bounds between the parties for
immovable properties described in Schedule-I of the plaint and
also held that gift deed dated 08.11.1984 is valid.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs/opposite parties
preferred aforesaid first appeal before this Court which was partly
allowed holding that the deed of gift (Ext.-A) is a void document
executed by a coparcener Ram Sagar Singh (defendant no. 1) in
favour of defendant nos. 2 to 6 as Ram Sagar Singh had no
authority to transfer by gift as gifted share in the coparcener
property and accordingly set aside the finding of the Trial Court
Patna High Court MJC No.3325 of 2016 dt.11-12-2025
with regard to gift deed Ext.-A and also held that there was no
partition by metes and bounds between the parties for immovable
properties described in Schedule-I of the plaint. The
defendants/respondents/petitioners did not file any cross appeal
and as such, the same finding of fact has attained finality and
further held that the plaintiffs are entitled to half share in the
Schedule-I properties and so far finding of the Trial Court with
regard to immovable properties are concerned, the learned Single
Judge has affirmed the finding of the Trial Court.
8. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated
24.06.2015 passed in First Appeal No. 119 of 1993, the
defendants/respondents/petitioners preferred SLP(C) No. 28408 of
2015 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was dismissed on
11.12.2015. Thereafter, the petitioners filed Review Petition
bearing RP(C) No. 2437 of 2016 for reviewing the order dated
11.12.2015 passed in SLP(C) No. 28408 of 2015. The said Review
Petition was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on
21.07.2016.
9. After dismissal of SLP(C) as well as Review Petition,
the petitioners filed instant application on 15.09.2016 for recalling
the judgment and decree dated 24.06.2015 passed in F.A. No. 119
of 1993 alleging that the judgments and decree has been obtained
Patna High Court MJC No.3325 of 2016 dt.11-12-2025
by the plaintiffs/opposite parties by playing fraud and making false
statement/deliberate suppression of the material facts that the
families of the parties to the suit are joint.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
opposite party no. 2, namely, Ravindra Kumar Singh filed an
application before Janta Darbar of S.D.M., Begusarai on
30.12.2015 which was registered as Land Dispute Case No. 13 of
2015-16 and in paragraph no. 7 of the said application, opposite
party no. 2 clearly and unambiguously stated that the land
appertaining to Khata No. 323, Plot No. 369, Area 18 Katha 15
Dhurs was allotted in 'Bakhudha Batwara' which took place
among the ancestors of which he has title and possession. This
statement has proved earlier partition between the ancestors of the
parties while he had clearly averred in his plaint that there was no
partition of the joint family properties between the parties. It is
also vehemently submitted that opposite party no. 2 Ravindra
Kumar Singh sold 15 dhurs homestead vacant land appertaining to
Khata No. 179, Plot No. 693, Tauzi No. 876 in favour of Sharda
Kumari through registered sale deed dated 07.12.2015 which was
executed on 04.12.2015. It is further submitted that in the recitals
of the aforesaid registered sale deeds, it has been admitted that the
aforesaid property is ancestral property and he is in possession on
Patna High Court MJC No.3325 of 2016 dt.11-12-2025
the basis of bakhudha partition among the co-sharer (farikain)
from the life time of his father. This statement is made on
04.12.2015 in the said registered sale deed by opposite party no. 2
which proves that the case is pleaded and proved by the plaintiffs
by suppressing the truth that there was previous partition by metes
and bounds among the sons of Natho Singh. They came in
exclusive possession over their allotted share having one-third
each as one of the sons of Natho Singh, namely, Sukhdeo Singh
had died unmarried prior to partition in the year 1985. The
plaintiffs/opposite parties has wrongly pleaded in his plaint that
there was no partition of the joint family properties between the
parties. Opposite party no. 2 has made false statement before the
Trial Court as well as this Court regarding jointness of the parties
with respect to the title and possession over the suit property
described in Schedule-I and II of the plaint of Title Suit No. 96 of
1985. The conduct of the plaintiffs/opposite parties amounts to
fraud both upon this Court, Trial Court as well as upon the
petitioners as opposite party no. 2 deliberately suppressed the
material facts. In such circumstances, the judgment and decree
obtained by opposite party no. 2 are vitiated in law as such
judgments and decree are void having been obtained by playing
fraud upon this Court. Therefore, such judgments and decree may
Patna High Court MJC No.3325 of 2016 dt.11-12-2025
be recalled by this Court in exercise of its inherent power as they
are nullity and non est in the eye of law.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian
Bank Vs. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported in (1996) 5
SCC 550 wherein the Apex Court has held that "The judiciary in
India also possess inherent power, especially under Section 151
C.P.C., to recall its judgment or order if it is obtained by fraud on
court."
12. Reliance has also been placed in the case of
Meghmala & Ors. Vs. G.Narasimha Reddy & Ors. reported in
(2010) 8 SCC 383. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case
has held that "In judicial proceedings, once a fraud is proved, all
advantages gained by playing fraud can be taken away. Every
court has an inherent power to recall its own order obtained by
fraud as order so obtained is non est."
13. Reliance has also been placed in the case of Deepa
Gourang Murdeshwar Katre Vs. Principal, V.A.V. College of Arts
& Ors. reported in (2007) 14 SCC 108, wherein, it has been held
that "If a case of fraud or mis-representation of such a dimension
is discovered that the very basis of order passed by a court of law
is affected, the court can recall its order."
Patna High Court MJC No.3325 of 2016 dt.11-12-2025
14. Reliance has also been placed in the case of Harjas
Rai Makhija (Dead) through Lrs. Vs. Pushparani Jain & Anr.
reported in (2017) 2 SCC 797. The Hon'be Apex Court has held
that "when there is an allegation of fraud by non-disclosure of
necessary or relevant facts or concealment of material facts, it
must be inquired into. It is only after evidence is led coupled with
intent to deceive that a conclusion of fraud could be arrived at. A
mere concealment or non-disclosure without intent to deceive or a
bald allegation of fraud without proof and intention to deceive
would not render a decree obtained by a party as fraudulent."
15. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
the judgments and decree obtained by fraud has to be treated as
nullity.
16. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
plaintiffs/opposite parties vehemently denied any kind of fraud
played by them in obtaining the judgment passed in F.A. No. 119
of 1993, which was heard at length in presence of learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners, who were respondents in the first
appeal, which was allowed by this Court and partly set aside the
judgment and decree dated 30.01.1993 passed by the learned Sub-
Judge-Ist, Begusarai in Title Suit No. 96 of 1985. In fact, the
petitioners lost the battle upto the Hon'ble Apex Court not only by
Patna High Court MJC No.3325 of 2016 dt.11-12-2025
filing SLP(C) No. 28408 of 2015, which was dismissed on
11.12.2015 but also by filing a civil review registered as RP(C)
No. 2437 of 2016, which was dismissed on 20.07.2016. The sale
deed said to be executed by opposite party no. 2 on 04.12.2015
and registered on 07.12.2015, the basis on which the plea of fraud
is being alleged against opposite party no. 2, is much prior to the
order dated 11.12.2015 passed in SLP(C) No. 28408 of 2015 and
order dated 21.07.2016 passed in Review Petition RP(C) No. 2437
of 2016 filed by the petitioners. The said document has been
executed on 04.12.2015 by opposite party no. 2 much after the
judgment dated 24.06.2015 passed in F.A. No. 119 of 1993.
Therefore, the contention of the petitioners against the opposite
parties that the opposite parties obtained the decree of this Court
by playing fraud has no legs to stand and hence the petition is
devoid of merit and fit to be dismissed.
17. Learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted
that the petitioners have not come before this Court with clean
hand. Opposite parties have come to know that the petitioners
through their petition dated 26.11.2015 filed in the said SLP(C)
No. 28408 of 2015 prayed for additional evidence for the purpose
of bringing on record certain documents contained in Annexures
P5, P6, P6/A, P7, P7/A, P8, P8/A and P9 (sale deed dated
Patna High Court MJC No.3325 of 2016 dt.11-12-2025
30.07.2015 executed by opposite party no. 2). The Apex Court did
not accept the same and not only dismissed the SLP(C) but also
dismissed the Review Petition filed by the petitioners.
18. The plea of fraud has already been agitated before
the Apex Court which was rejected by the Apex Court. The sale
deed executed on 04.12.2015 by opposite party no. 2 remotely
constitute ingredients of fraud as has been alleged by the
petitioners. This fact has not been accepted by the Hon'ble Apex
Court.
19. In the aforesaid background, the petitioners cannot
be allowed to re-agitate the matter again after being concluded and
finally settled by this Court, which was affirmed upto the Hon'ble
Apex Court.
20. It is admitted fact that against the judgment under
review, the petitioners have preferred SLP(C) No. 28408 of 2015
before the Hon'ble Apex Court assailing the judgment and decree
passed in F.A. No. 119 of 1993 by this Court. Thereafter, an
interlocutory application was filed on 26.11.2025 seeking
permission to place on record additional documents which have
come into existence after passing of the judgment and decree. The
said SLP(C) No. 28408 of 2015 was dismissed on 11.12.2015.
Thereafter, the petitioners filed Review Petition vide RP(C) No.
Patna High Court MJC No.3325 of 2016 dt.11-12-2025
2437 of 2016 in SLP(C) No. 28408 of 2015. The Hon'ble Apex
Court dismissed the Review Petition also in following terms: "We
have perused the Review Petition and record of the SLP(C) and
are convinced that the order of which review has been sought
doesn't suffer from any error apparent warranting its
reconsideration.
The Review Petition is accordingly dismissed."
21. It is apparent from the record that the document on
which the petitioners have relied upon which discloses the earlier
partition by opposite party no. 2 was executed or obtained much
before passing of the order dated 11.12.2015 passed in SLP(C) No.
28408 of 2015 and order dated 21.07.2016 passed in RP(C) No.
2437 of 2016. More so, the petition filed for additional evidence
by the petitioners before the Apex Court was not accepted by the
Apex Court. The findings of the learned Trial Court is that there
was no partition by metes and bounds between the parties for
immovable properties described in Schedule-I of the plaint.
Against the said finding, the respondents (petitioners) have chosen
not to file any cross appeal or a regular appeal against the said
judgment and decree of Trial Court. The plea of earlier partition as
claimed by the petitioners has been rejected and upheld upto the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. The documents relied by the petitioners
Patna High Court MJC No.3325 of 2016 dt.11-12-2025
were available at the time of pendency of SLP(C) as well as Civil
Review Petition. The plea of fraud has not been made out in the
present case. The petitioners had opportunity to prove the
allegation of fraud when they filed an application under Order 41
Rule 27 C.P.C. before the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, they
missed the opportunity even upto the Supreme Court. They took a
second attempt by alleging fraud and filing a recall application.
The alleged fraud not having been proved but merely alleged does
not make a ground to recall the impugned judgment and decree.
22. Hence, I do not find any reason to recall the
judgment dated 24.06.2015 passed in F.A. No. 119 of 1993 by this
Court.
23. Accordingly, this Review Application is hereby
dismissed having no merit in it.
24. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, shall
stand disposed of.
(Khatim Reza, J)
prabhat/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 21.08.2025
Uploading Date 13.12.2025
Transmission Date N/A
