suit
property from Smt. Parsani Devi, pursuant to a collusive decree
R.S.A. No.2885 of 2002 2
dated 19.08.1991.
The plaintiff-respondent ... alienating the suit land. Despite this order, Parsani Devi suffered
a collusive decree dated 19.08.1991, transferring the suit land in
favour of Smt. Lajjo
jurisdiction to disregard the decree. The
Collector and the Joint Director have held that this decree is collusive,
without assigning any reasons. The mere fact ... civil court
judgment and decree. The Collector and the Joint Director,
Panchayats, have rightly held that the decree is collusive and, therefore,
does not transmit
Singh
(defendants-respondents no.2 to 6). Chanan Singh suffered a collusive
decree dated 4.7.1972, whereby he transferred his entire property to the
appellant ... 2134 of 1982 2
Singh had no right to suffer the collusive decree in favour of his other sons
or enter into a family settlement
estate of one Kundan Singh and though initially based upon a
collusive decree and a registered will, Ex.D1, dated 13.12.1971 is
now confined ... decree, the defendant-
respondents filed an appeal. The first appellate court, affirmed the
finding that judgment and decree, dated 21.12.1979, is collusive, but
reversed
joint Hindu family, Mangat
Ram had no right to suffer a collusive decree in favour of the
respondent. Mangat Ram was old and infirm ... even otherwise had
no reason to suffer a collusive decree in favour of the respondent. It
was further pleaded that as the collusive decree involves
joint Hindu
family, Mangat Ram had no right to suffer a collusive decree in
favour of the respondents. Mangat Ram was old and infirm ... even
otherwise had no reason to suffer a collusive decree in favour of the
respondents. It was further pleaded that as the collusive decree
involves
which suit filed by the Gram
Panchayat, challenging the validity of collusive decree dated 18.04.1974,
has been decreed. Since the appeal has been ordered ... independent
suit to set aside the said decree and seeks declaration that the said decree
was collusive or fraudulent, it cannot be ignored. In this
further argued that the learned Joint
Director, while holding that the decree is collusive, has not
assigned any reason in support of its finding ... empowered to ignore a
collusive decree, even it was passed by a Civil Court. The
petitioners, however, contend that as the decree has been passed
jurisdiction to ignore the decree. The
finding recorded by the appellate court that the decree is collusive,
is not borne out from any evidence ... appellate authority has appraised the decree and
recorded a clear finding of fact that the decree is collusive. In the
absence of any tenable argument
also pleaded that as the suit land is
ancestral and the collusive decree has not been registered, the consent
decree is a nullity. In opposition ... with any tangible interest in
land, he could not suffer the collusive decree dated 12.10.1988,
transferring 14 Kanals to the respondents.
The first question
