Madras High Court· 16 September 2026

Can a decree obtained by fraud be challenged at any time, even in collateral proceedings?

Natarajan v. Lakshmi

SA.1843/2004 · 2026:MHC:3807 · S.A. No.1843 & 1844 of 2004
Coram: Justice R.Sakthivel

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow Order XXIII Rule 3A Code of Civi…📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

A decree obtained by fraud can be challenged at any time, even in collateral proceedings.

Yes. A decree obtained by fraud can be challenged at any time, even in collateral proceedings, since fraud vitiates all solemn acts, and there is no bar to questioning it in a separate suit in view of s.44 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Where summons were wilfully sent to a false address despite a caveat disclosing the correct one, the decree so obtained is liable to be set aside.

Headnote

Property — Ancestral property — Purchase from sale proceeds of ancestral property — Suit for bare injunction — Denial of title — Decree obtained by fraud — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order XXIII Rule 3A — Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s.44 — Property — Character of the property purchased — Held: Property purchased with the proceeds of sale of ancestral property is ancestral property. (¶22) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Suit for bare injunction — Denial of title — Held further: A suit for bare injunction is maintainable despite denial of title where the question of title is simple and not complicated, and only a complicated question of title requires the parties to be relegated to a suit for declaration. (¶25) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order XXIII Rule 3A — Memo not signed by both parties — Held further: Order XXIII Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 does not bar a suit where the memo is not signed by both parties. (¶33) Evidence — Decree obtained by fraud — Indian Evidence Act, 1872, s.44 — Held further: A decree obtained by fraud can be challenged at any time, even in collateral proceedings, fraud vitiating all solemn acts. (¶34) Second appeals allowed in part; suit remanded. (¶35)

Headnote

You've used your free headnotes this month

The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.

Create my free account

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 32Further, in the caveats filed by the plaintiff before the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court [Ex-A.72 and Ex-A.73], he has stated his address to be Vannankadu, Abhisekhapuram, Merkkupathy Village, Tiruppur Taluk. Whereas, his address as stated by the defendant herein in the plaint in O.S. No.111 of 1996 is Andipalayam, Thoravalur Village, Tiruppur Taluk. Ex-A.11 - Residential Certificate, Ex-A.12 - Voter List, Ex-A.13 to Ex-A.19 - Inland letters addressed to the plaintiff, all would support his address stated in the caveats. This shows that the defendant, despite receiving the caveat, has wilfully sent summons for the plaintiff herein to false address. The defendant's contention in this regard that Merkkupathy Village and Thoravalur Village are adjacent villages and any reference to one would also mean reference to the other, deserves to be recorded only to be rejected. It is untenable by any stretch of imagination.

Paragraph 34A cumulative consideration of these facts would show that the defendant played fraud to obtain the Decree in O.S. No.111 of 1996 passed based on Ex-B.4 - Memo. If a Decree is obtained by playing fraud on the Court, it is invalid and may be challenged at any point of point of time even in collateral proceedings, as fraud vitiates all solemn acts, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu -vs- Jagannath, reported in (1994) 1 SCC 1. There is no bar to question the same in a separate Suit in view of Section 44 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Hence, the First Appellate Court ought to have set aside the fraudulent Decree passed in O.S. No.111 of 1996, but it failed to do so. Therefore, this Court is inclined to set aside the Decree in O.S. No.111 of 1996 as invalid as obtained by fraud. Substantial Questions of Law (b) and (c) are answered accordingly.

Acts & Sections

Order XXIII Rule 3A Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s.100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s.44 Indian Evidence Act, 1872

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of Natarajan v. Lakshmi — and get the Madras High Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Is property purchased with the proceeds of sale of ancestral property ancestral property?Is a suit for bare injunction maintainable despite denial of title where the question of title is simple and not complicated?Does Order XXIII Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 bar a suit where the memo is not signed by both parties?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections