Civil Procedure — Delay — Condonation — Gross delay of 31 years — Challenge to decree after 31 years — Grounds of fraud and lack of knowledge not substantiated — Delay cannot be condoned as a matter of generosity where it defeats finality and causes prejudice — Condonation set aside. (Paras 15–17)

advocatemmmohan

Civil Procedure — Delay — Condonation — Gross delay of 31 years —

Challenge to decree after 31 years — Grounds of fraud and lack of knowledge not substantiated — Delay cannot be condoned as a matter of generosity where it defeats finality and causes prejudice — Condonation set aside.

(Paras 15–17)

---

Ex parte decree — Validity — Opportunity of hearing —

Where defendant had:

• appeared through counsel,
• participated in proceedings, and
• adduced evidence,

subsequent plea of lack of opportunity or absence of notice is untenable — Ex parte decree valid.

(Paras 9–12, 16)

---

Pleading of fraud — Requirement —

Allegation of fraud must be specific and supported by material particulars — Bald and improved pleas at appellate stage insufficient to invalidate decree.

(Paras 11, 16)

---

Evidence — Withholding best evidence — Adverse inference —

Where party sets up defence based on document (sale deed) but fails to produce it, Court is justified in drawing adverse inference — Burden lies on party in possession of best evidence.

(Para 13)

---

Voidable transaction — Repudiation — Mode —

Repudiation of a voidable transaction need not necessarily be by separate suit — Can be effected by unequivocal conduct, including assertion of title and obtaining declaratory decree.

(Para 14)

---

Remand — Impropriety — Long delay —

Remand of matter after decades, despite full trial and participation by parties, is impermissible — Finality of litigation cannot be unsettled on untenable grounds.

(Para 19)

---

Property law — Transfer by minor — Validity —

Transfer of property of a minor without permission of Court is hit by statutory prohibition — Subsequent transferees cannot claim valid title in absence of proper title tracing.

(Para 18)

---

RATIO DECIDENDI 

A decree cannot be reopened after inordinate delay on vague allegations of fraud where the defendant had participated in proceedings; non-production of foundational documents attracts adverse inference, and courts cannot unsettle finality of litigation by condoning gross delay or ordering remand without substantive grounds.

---

RESULT

• Appeal allowed
• High Court & remand orders set aside
• Original decree restored

(Paras 19–20)