Skip to content


Ram Sarup and anr. Vs. RukmIn Kuar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1885)ILR7All884
AppellantRam Sarup and anr.
RespondentRukmIn Kuar and ors.
Excerpt:
suit to set aside a decree on the ground of fraud - act i of 1877 (specific relief act), section 42. - .....costs.straight, j.3. i concur in the order of the learned chief justice that this appeals must be dismissed with.....
Judgment:

W. Comer Petheram, C.J.

1. I think that this appeal must be dismissed with costs. The action was brought to set aside a decree which was passed in a Court of competent jurisdiction, and which could have been appealed, and was subject to be set aside if wrong. If the decree in the first suit was wrong, it was one that was subject to appeal as between the parties. If the decree was between other parties, and was obtained by fraud, that fraud may be subject of a suit when it has affected the rights of persons other than the parties to the fraudulent decree. I cannot see how a suit of this kind will lie. Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act does not authorize it, nor does any other law or rule.

2. The learned Judge was right in deciding as he did, and this appeal must be dismissed with costs.

Straight, J.

3. I concur in the order of the learned Chief Justice that this appeals must be dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //