Sarthakram Maiti vs Nundo Ram Maiti

The only point raised in support of this appeal is that the Munsif had no jurisdiction under the law to declare a decree to he a nullity which had been passed by a Court of superior jurisdiction, namely, the Court of the Subordinate Judge In support of the contention, reliance has been placed on the cases of Aushmotosh Chandra v. Tara Prosanna Roy I. L. R. 10 Cal. 612 (1884) and Kedar Nath Mukerjee v. Prosonna Kumar Chatterjee 5 C. W. N. 559 (1901). We do not, however, find that in either of the decisions in these two cases it has been laid down that a Court of inferior jurisdiction is incompetent, when otherwise it has jurisdiction in dealing with a suit, to declare a judgment to be a nullity when that judgment has been given in a Court of superior jurisdiction and when it is proved that it is vitiated by reason of fraud. There can be no doubt, on the authorities quoted, that fraud invalidates all proceedings obtained thereby; and though a Court of inferior jurisdiction may not have the power to set aside a decree passed by a Court of superior jurisdiction, on the ground that it has been obtained by fraud, still it has, in our opinion, the power at least to treat it as a nullity and to pass a judgment declaring it to be so. This is the view taken in the case of Nunda Lal Bose v. Nistarini Dassee, on which the Munsif has relied. We can find no authority in the cases to which we have referred for holding that in this case the Munsif had no jurisdiction. The value of the decree which was obtained by fraud was Rs. 607-11-3 and a suit brought in respect of that sum, would, certainly, under the provisions of law, be one which must be instituted in the Munsifs Court as the Court of the lowest pecuniary jurisdiction competent to try it. We, therefore, see no grounds for differing from the view taken by the lower Court in this case, and we dismiss the appeal with costs.