9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of ex-parte decree obtained in suit for possession of land. 2. Allegation of collusion between the parties in obtaining the decree. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Ex-parte Decree: The case involved a piece of land in Calcutta, part of a building lease taken by a private limited company from the Official Trustee. Subsequently, subleases were made, leading to a dispute over possession. The ex-parte decree obtained by the lessor against the lessee's sub-lessee resulted in the sub-lessee being declared a trespasser. The plaintiff, a sub-lessee, challenged the decree, claiming it was obtained fraudulently and collusively to evict him without due process. The Trial Judge initially declared the plaintiff as a tenant under the first defendant and issued an injunction against execution of the decree. However, the appellate Bench set aside this decree, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove collusion in obtaining the ex-parte decree. 2. Allegation of Collusion: The main issue in the appeal was whether collusion existed between the lessor and lessee to procure the ex-parte decree. The plaintiff argued that collusion was evident from various circumstances, including common directors between the entities, shared interests, and strategic legal maneuvers to circumvent obstacles like the Thika Tenancy Act. The plaintiff contended that the failure to contest the ejectment suit and the omission to include the sub-lessee in the proceedings indicated collusion. However, the Court found that the actions taken by the parties were not improper or dishonest. The Court clarified that the omission to implead the sub-lessee was lawful, and the failure to contest the suit was not necessarily indicative of collusion, especially when no plausible defense was available. The Court concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish collusion, and the decree in question was validly obtained. In summary, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the appellate Bench that the ex-parte decree was not procured collusively. The judgment emphasized that the legal actions taken by the parties were within the bounds of the law, and the plaintiff's allegations of collusion were unfounded. The Court's analysis focused on the lack of evidence to support the claim of dishonesty or improper conduct in obtaining the decree, ultimately affirming the validity of the decree and the dismissal of the suit.
|
