Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Per contra, learned Counsel for plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 33 contends that the suit was filed by the fourth defendant against Nawab Mir Amjad Ali on 07.09.2004 and ex parte decree was obtained on 22.11.2004, which itself would show that it was a collusive decree. When the plaintiffs are not made parties and when they are directly adversely affected by such ex parte collusive decree, they had no other go except to file the suit to declare the offending Judgment as null and void. Under A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (RoR Act, for brevity), a person acquiring rights to agricultural land under a Court decree can seek mutation in revenue records as well as pattadar pass books, which carry presumption of title under the RoR Act, and therefore, if the offending Judgment is not suspended there is likelihood of the fourth defendant getting pattadar pass books and transferring the property to the third parties to defeat the claim of the plaintiffs in the suit. According to learned Counsel when a person is not a party to the collusive decree such person can always seek suspension of the said decree in a subsequent suit even at interlocutory stage. He placed reliance on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Surajdeo v. Board of Revenue .