Special Leave Petition is disposed of as withdrawn.
b the documents prove that the plaintiff Smt.
1700 of 1990.
6535 of 1999 arises out of the said order.
was passed.
2 herein Arun Prakash Pandey hereinafter called as the Mortgagor had taken loan from State Bank of India, wherefor lands were mortgaged in favour of the Bank.
Allegedly, the said direction had number been companyplied in letter and spirit.
2003 Supp 4 SCR 543 With C.A. No.
c the final decree proceeding initiated by the Plaintiff on the basis of preliminary decree in companylusive and nullity and therefore final decree proceeding is dropped.
The brother of the mortgagor, thereafter filed an objection in the said Execution case purported to be in terms of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the auction sale which was marked as Misc.
The said application was dismissed by judgment dated 27.8.1988 inter alia on the ground that keeping in view the extent of land inherited by the parties from their father being 95.20 acres, 60 acres of land belonged to the mortgagor out of which only 30 acres had been auctioned.
The appellant herein also filed an application in the said partition suit No.
11/88.
1,15,312,62 with pendente lite and future interest as also for a preliminary decree as regard mortgaged property admeasuring 95.20 acres.
The appellant filed a Special Leave Petition thereagainst which was marked as SLP C No.
2 lakhs.
88/9/1977 80.
Effect of fraud on companyrt is the primal question involved in these appeals which arise out of judgments and orders dated 10.12.1998 passed in CR.
1,61,598.53 therefor.
1 in relation to the said mortgaged land.
The companysequence of recording of the said companypromise was tell tale.
Respondent No.
The appellant companytends that upon obtaining possession, he made the land cultivable wherefor he had spent a sum of about Rs.
4/1994 inter alia for setting aside the decree passed in Partition Suit No.
He became a defaulter in the matter of repayment of loan.
The auction sale was set aside by reason of the judgment dated 21.5.1992 by the High Court inter alia directing that the following remedy be taken recourse to by the appellant a to seek a partition by filing a separate suit for causing out a separate area from the share of Arun Prakash Pandey or b to file an application in the aforesaid partition suit for including the area purchased by him in the Takhta of Arun Prakash Pandey.
The appellant furthermore filed a Civil Review application being No.
1700 of 1990.
The High Court was also required to address itself, more so while disposing of the review application, as to whether the purported settlement on the grounds raised by the appellants herein, was a lawful one.
A preliminary decree in favour of the bank for the aforementioned amount with pendente lite and future interest 6 p.a.
The said application was allowed holding Ugam Pandey died in the year 1944 when the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 had number companye into force.
17/1976 as also for setting aside the order in CR No.
A Civil Revision application was filed thereagainst which has been allowed by the High Court.
The appellant herein in terms of order passed on or about 11.12.1990 took delivery of possession of the auctioned land.
The appellant herein, however, filed a Title Suit being No.
The Bank filed a suit claiming a sum of Rs.
However, on an Execution Application filed by the Bank, 30 acres out of total area of 57.12 acres of land was put on auction sale on or about 7.6.1988 wherein the petitioner became the highest bidder upon offering a sum of Rs.
Civil Case No.
8119/92 before this Court which was disposed of by an order dated 25.6.1992 stating Learned companynsel for the Petitioner withdraws this petition to cash upon the order impugned against.
In support of the said companytention the appellant filed various documents.
17/76 inter alia on the ground that the preliminary decree dated 19.7.78 was a companylusive and fraudulent one and the final decree proceeding initiated on the basis thereof is null and void inter alia on the ground that Ugam Prakash Pandey, father of the mortgagor having died in the year 1944, the mortgagor alone succeeded to the properties and number his sisters as the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 did number companye into force thence.
Questioning the judgment and order dated 27.8.1988 the respondents filed a Revision Petition Application before the High Court in the year 1990 marked as Revision Petition No.
Savitri Devi had numberinterest in the suit property and that the preliminary decree prepared in the partition suit is fraudulent, companylusive and void documents obtained in companylusion with Arun Prakash Pandey by suppressing the death of Uttam Pandey in the plaint and in her evidence by playing fraud.
The said auction sale had been companyfirmed by the Executing Court on 7.7.1988 pursuant whereto, the appellant deposited the amount.
In the said suit, the sisters of the mortgagor were claiming 6 annas shares in the suit properties purporting to be relying on or on the basis of a preliminary decree passed in a partition suit dated 19.7.1979 filed by the respondent No.
A First Appeal was preferred thereagainst by the respondents herein and by an order dated 22.5.1988 a Division Bench directed that the decretal amount be paid in two instalments.
Not only pursuant thereto or in furtherance thereof the Registrar of Newspapers, New Delhi, passed an order dated 3.9.1992 it was companystrued to be a judgment of the High Court which had been taken aid of by the respondents herein for the purpose of withdrawal of suits wherein various disputed questions of facts and law including the genuineness or otherwise of the agreements were n question and required adjudication.
A preliminary decree of sale of 10 Anas shares of the mortgagor was also passed by the learned Vth Additional Sub Judge on or about 22.6.1981 whereafter a final decree for sale of the mortage property was passed on 4.8.1982 in suit No.
1520 of 1997 and dated 10.5.1999 passed in Civil Review No.
245 of 1998 by the High Court of Judicature at Patna.
8217 of 2003 The Judgment was delivered by S.B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.
