Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

15.That apart, if there is a partition in the year 1998, as alleged, why the suit should be filed in the year 1990 and the suit in O.S.No.275 of 1990 has been filed on 21.03.1990 and that a compromise application viz., I.A.No.1519 of 1991 has been filed by the four plaintiffs in suit O.S.No.275 of 1990 and that on 17.12.1991, a Compromise Decree has been passed and on 22.04.2002 O.S.No.214 of 2002 has been filed by the 1st respondent/ 4th plaintiff praying for the relief of declaration that the final decree passed in I.A.No.1519 of 1991 in O.S.No.275 of 1990 is void, having been obtained by fraud at the instance of D1 to D3 etc. and later, the suit has been withdrawn and in the Compromise Decree in O.S.No.275 of 1990 Thiru.T.R.Mani, learned counsel for the 1st defendant has not signed but the 1st defendant has signed and the 2nd defendant Amudha who says that she does not want properties, her lawyer has signed but D3 and D4 have not signed in the compromise but D3 and D4 have been given up and in a suit for partition the concept of giving up any party may not arise and giving up the parties is a make belief arrangement and for relinquishment of properties release deed dated 14.11.1973 has not been produced and a fraud has been played upon the trial court and how can the learned Additional Sub Judge, Salem Thiru.P.Ramakrishnan can sign in the decree in O.S.No.275 of 1990 dated 17.12.1991 when the learned Judge who passed the judgment viz., Thiru.D.Dhandapani, learned Principal Sub Judge, Salem has been very much present on 17.12.1991 and therefore Ex.R5 order dated 17.12.1991 in O.S.No.275 of 1990 is shrouded on suspicion and in fact there cannot be a Decree without a Judgment and Ex.R6 is the decree dated 17.12.1991 passed in O.S.No.275 of 1990 and though Ex.R5 decree in O.S.No.275 of 1990 is in the name of Thiru.D.Dhandapani, learned Principal Sub Judge, Salem but on the reverse side of the decree Thiru.P.Ramakrishnan, learned Additional Sub Judge, Salem has signed for learned Principal Sub Judge, Salem and on 17.12.1991, admittedly, the learned Additional Sub Judge, Salem Thiru.P.Ramakrishnan has been on Casual Leave and Ex.R5 decree in O.S.No.275 of 1990 is a procured document, which has been accepted by the trial court and placing reliance on Ex.R5 decree in O.S.No.275 of 1990 dated 17.12.1991 will amount to fraud being played on a Court of law no one has been examined on either side as witness in I.A.No.535 of 2007 in O.S.No.275 of 1990 on the file of learned Principal Sub Judge, Salem and on 17.12.1991 none other parties have been present and only on 16.12.1991 parties have been present and also that learned counsel for D2 has not signed in the compromise D4 and D5 have not signed and also their lawyers have not signed and if there is a muchalika for partition then why a suit has to be filed in O.S.No.275 of 1990 and indeed both Thiru.D.Dhandapani, learned Principal Sub Judge, Salem and Thiru.P.Ramakrishnan, learned Additional Sub Judge, Salem have been holding their respective offices, Order 20 Rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code speaks of procedure when a learned Judge has vacated office.