Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. The Supreme Court held that the suit was rightly dismissed and the mere fact that the sub-lessee was not impleaded or that the lessee did not actually contest the suit did not render the decree passed in the suit as collusive especially when it was not suggested by the sub-lessee that the lessor had even a plausible defence to the claim for ejectment. Collusion in judicial proceedings was defined by the Supreme Court as a secret arrangement between two persons that the one should institute a suit against the other in order to obtain the decision of a judicial tribunal for some sinister purpose. It was further held that where the landlord institutes a suit against the lessees for possession of the land on the basis of a valid notice to quit served on the lessee and does not implead the sublessees as a party to the suit, the object of the landlord is to eject the sub-lessee from the land in execution of the decree and such an object is quite legitimate; the decree in such a suit would bind the sub-lessee; this may not act harshly on the sub-lessee, but this is a position well understood by him when he took the sub-lease, the law allowed this and so the admission cannot be said to be an improper act; the mere fact that the defendant agrees with the plaintiff that if a suit is brought he would not defend it, would not necessarily prove collusion; and it is only if this agreement is done improperly in the sense that a dishonest purpose is intended to be achieved that they can be said to have colluded.