Fraud Vitiates the Most Solemn Proceedings – Consent Decree Without Appearance or Registration Is Void: Punjab & Haryana High Court

“Where the very foundation of a consent decree rests on fraud, absence of appearance, and lack of registration, it is not merely voidable—it is void ab initio,” held the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 30 October 2025, in a detailed and emphatic ruling delivered by Justice Mandeep Pannu, dismissing a Regular Second Appeal.

The Court upheld concurrent findings of both the Trial Court (1999) and the First Appellate Court (2003), which had declared a civil court decree dated 01.04.1988 to be fraudulent, unregistered, and not binding on the rights of the natural heirs of Smt. Ram Bhuli, who was found never to have appeared in court, engaged counsel, or signed any pleading. The impugned decree had allegedly transferred her 1/3rd share in agricultural land to the appellant, her remote relative by marriage, under the guise of a “family settlement.”

“No Appearance, No Verification, No Advocate – Decree Is a Product of Deception”

The case revolved around a suit for declaration and possession filed by Roshan and others, asserting themselves as the natural heirs of Smt. Ram Bhuli, who died in 1993. Upon seeking mutation of her estate, they discovered the land had already been transferred in 1988 through a civil court decree suffered in favour of Smt. Batti, the daughter-in-law of Ram Bhuli’s brother.

The Court found that:

“Smt. Ram Bhuli never appeared before the Civil Court, did not sign any verified pleading, nor engaged any advocate. The written statement and power of attorney filed in her name bore no advocate's endorsement or her thumb impression at the verification clause. The entire proceeding was manipulated behind her back.” [Para 39]

Invoking the celebrated dictum in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, the Court reiterated:

“Fraud vitiates even the most solemn of proceedings. A decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non-existent in law.” [Para 41]

“Family Settlement Must Involve Pre-existing Rights – Remote Relation Cannot Inherit via Consent Decree”

The appellant's main defence was that the decree was based on a “family settlement”, where Smt. Ram Bhuli voluntarily transferred her inherited share to her extended paternal family. The High Court, however, rejected this defence outright, observing:

“The appellant, being merely the daughter-in-law of the brother of Smt. Ram Bhuli, had no pre-existing right or claim in the suit property. A valid family settlement presupposes antecedent rights among close members. This claim was not even pleaded in the original written statement.” [Para 40]

The Court distinguished precedents like Bachan Singh v. Kartar Chand and Dhian Singh v. Mohinder Singh, noting:

“Unlike those cases involving genuine settlements among close co-sharers with antecedent rights, the present case is a clear attempt to fabricate title by fraud. The so-called family settlement is nothing but an afterthought.” [Paras 40, 46]

“Unregistered Decree Creating New Rights in Immovable Property Is Void”

The judgment further holds that even if the decree had been genuinely suffered, it would still be void for want of registration under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908:

“A decree which purports to convey title to immovable property of value exceeding ₹100 in favour of a person having no pre-existing right is compulsorily registerable. The impugned decree, being unregistered, is incapable of creating or transferring any legal right.” [Para 42]

“Limitation Governed by Article 65 – Void Decree Requires No Cancellation Under Article 59”

The appellant had also argued that the suit filed in 1995 was barred by limitation, contending that the plaintiffs had knowledge of the 1988 decree much earlier. This was rejected by the Court:

“The cause of action arose only in 1993 upon the death of Smt. Ram Bhuli when the plaintiffs approached the revenue authorities and discovered the fraudulent decree. The suit, instituted in 1995, falls well within the 12-year period under Article 65 of the Limitation Act.” [Para 43]

Citing the Supreme Court’s latest decision in Shanti Devi v. Jagan Devi, 2025 (4) RCR (Civil) 202, the Court affirmed that:

“Where a decree is void ab initio on account of fraud, it is non est in the eyes of law and does not require a formal declaration under Article 59. The limitation is governed by Article 65.” [Para 43]

“Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Title – Estoppel Cannot Operate Against a Fraud”

The Court also brushed aside the plea that mutation based on the decree, and alleged compromise by some heirs, estopped the plaintiffs from contesting the decree:

“Mutation proceedings are fiscal in nature and do not create title. More importantly, no estoppel can operate against a fraud. Once the foundation of the decree is found fraudulent, all subsequent proceedings, including mutation, collapse automatically.” [Para 44

“Locus Standi of Legal Heirs Unimpeachable Once Fraud is Established”

The Court also rejected the argument that the plaintiffs had no locus standi to challenge the decree after Ram Bhuli’s death:

“Once the decree is held void, the property remained vested in Smt. Ram Bhuli until her death. The plaintiffs, being her natural heirs, are entitled to succeed to her estate and had a legitimate cause of action to file the suit.” [Para 45]

“Concurrent Findings Based on Evidence and Law – No Substantial Question of Law Raised in Appeal”

Dismissing the Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC, the Court held:

“Both courts below meticulously assessed oral and documentary evidence and applied settled legal principles. No perversity, misdirection, or substantial question of law arises in the appeal. It deserves outright dismissal.” [Para 47]

“Accordingly, the present Regular Second Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The judgments and decrees passed by the learned Trial Court and affirmed by the learned Lower Appellate Court are upheld.” [Para 48]

Date of Decision: 30 October 2025