Supreme Court of India

Ram Chandra Singh v Savitri Devi

2003 Supp (4) SCR 543; AIRONLINE 2003 SC 53720031 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
A bank obtained a mortgage decree against a defaulting mortgagor, and 30 acres were sold at auction to the appellant. In a separate partition suit, the mortgagor's sisters had obtained a preliminary decree giving them shares in the mortgaged land. The appellant alleged that this decree was collusive and obtained by suppressing the death of a co-sharer, and that a later consent order in the First Appeal had been obtained by suppressing the auction sale.
Issue
What is the effect of fraud on the court and suppression of material facts on decrees and orders so obtained.
Held
Fraud vitiates every solemn act; fraud and justice never dwell together. A judgment or order obtained by fraud on the court cannot be allowed to stand. The High Court's orders were set aside and the matters sent back to it for fresh consideration.
Principle
A decree or order obtained by fraud on the court or by suppression of material facts is vitiated.
Cite this

Facts

  • A bank obtained a mortgage decree against a defaulting mortgagor, and 30 acres were sold at auction to the appellant. In a separate partition suit, the mortgagor's sisters had obtained a preliminary decree giving them shares in the mortgaged land. The appellant alleged that this decree was collusive and obtained by suppressing the death of a co-sharer, and that a later consent order in the First Appeal had been obtained by suppressing the auction sale.

Issue

  1. What is the effect of fraud on the court and suppression of material facts on decrees and orders so obtained.

Held

  • Fraud vitiates every solemn act; fraud and justice never dwell together. A judgment or order obtained by fraud on the court cannot be allowed to stand. The High Court's orders were set aside and the matters sent back to it for fresh consideration.

Ratio decidendi

Fraud on the court, including suppression of material facts, vitiates judgments, contracts and all transactions, following S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v Jagannath (1994). Such a decree can be questioned and the court should not let a party keep an advantage obtained by fraud.

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

  • Fraud on court: Cite with S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v Jagannath (1994).
  • Correction (2026-10-21): An earlier version of this file described the case as a counter-claim authority under O.VIII R.6A and cited (2003) 8 SCC 319. The judgment on Indian Kanoon concerns fraud on the court and does not discuss counter-claims; the SCC citation could not be confirmed there and is omitted. It has been removed from CPC-2.5.

Cite this

Citation

Ram Chandra Singh v Savitri Devi 2003 Supp (4) SCR 543; AIRONLINE 2003 SC 537

Reported: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/371933/. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.