ABUBAKAR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The substantial question of law involved, formulated and to be answered in this second appeal preferred by the appellantdefendant is as under ­ Whether both the courts below were justified in setting aside the judgment and decree dated 05.12.96 passed in Civil Suit No.6A95 by First Civil Judge, Class I, Mahasamund, without looking into the aspect of pleadings and proof regarding fraud in its legal and proper perspective

(2.) The suit land bearing Khasra No.703C area 1.214 hectares was allotted by Naib ­Tahsildar, Basna in favour of defendant No.1 on 9.11.92 (Ex.P ­9) under the provisions of the Revenue Book Circular, which was revoked by the Additional Collector, Raipur in exercising of suo moto jurisdiction on 10.4.95 (Ex.P ­ 10) and the land was directed to be mutated in the name of the Stateplaintiff, against which, the defendant preferred Civil Suit No.6A95 (Abubakar v. State of of Madhya Pradesh and another) for declaring the Additional Collector's order dated 10.4.95 as void and ineffective, which was ultimately granted by decree of Civil Court dated 5.12.96 (Ex.P ­1). Thereafter, the State Governmentplaintiff filed Civil Suit NO.62A2003 (State of Madhya Pradesh v. Abubakar) for declaring the judgment and decree dated 5.12.96 (Ex.P ­1) as null and void stating inter ­alia that decree has been obtained by fraud as the defendant was not entitled for allotment of said land being non ­resident of village Basna under the provisions of the Revenue Book Circular, which was seriously opposed by the defendant by filing written statement stating inter ­alia that decree has been granted on valid ground and no fraud was practiced upon the Court by the defendant while obtaining decree from jurisdictional civil Court, as such, the suit deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment and decree dated 20.9.2004, decreed the suit holding that decree dated 5.12.96 (Ex.P ­1) obtained by the defendant is null and void and it was obtained by playing fraud on the Court, against which, the defendant preferred first appeal under Section 96 of the CPC, which was also dismissed by the first appellate Court by the impugned judgment and decree. Questioning the judgment and decree of the first appellate court, this second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC has been filed by the appellantdefendant, in which substantial question of law has been formulated by this Court, which has been set ­out in opening paragraph of this judgment.