Limitation actFraudSupreme Court of India

A.V. Papayya Sastry v Government of Andhra Pradesh

Civil Appeal Nos. 5097-5099 of 200420071 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
Land owners in Visakhapatnam obtained orders from the Andhra Pradesh High Court in writ appeals about land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, on the footing that the land had been taken over for the Port Trust. The High Court later found that material facts had been suppressed and recalled its judgment of 27 April 2000.
Issue
Whether the High Court could recall its own final judgment on the ground that it had been obtained by fraud.
Held
A judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non est in the eye of law. It can be challenged in any court, at any time, in appeal, revision, writ or collateral proceedings. The recall was upheld and the appeals were dismissed with costs.
Principle
A judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non est, and can be challenged in any court at any time
Cite this

Facts

  • Land owners in Visakhapatnam obtained orders from the Andhra Pradesh High Court in writ appeals about land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, on the footing that the land had been taken over for the Port Trust. The High Court later found that material facts had been suppressed and recalled its judgment of 27 April 2000.

Issue

  1. Whether the High Court could recall its own final judgment on the ground that it had been obtained by fraud.

Held

  • A judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non est in the eye of law. It can be challenged in any court, at any time, in appeal, revision, writ or collateral proceedings. The recall was upheld and the appeals were dismissed with costs.

Ratio decidendi

Fraud avoids all judicial acts. Finality of litigation does not protect a judgment obtained by fraud on the court.

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

Use alongside S.17 Limitation Act and S.44 Evidence Act to show that fraud defeats finality. Earlier versions of this file described it as a S.17 concealment case and gave (2007) 4 SCC 221; that description was wrong and the reporter citation could not be confirmed on Indian Kanoon, so it has been dropped.

Cite this

Citation

A.V. Papayya Sastry v Government of Andhra Pradesh Civil Appeal Nos. 5097-5099 of 2004

Reported: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1154981/. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.