AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In Venkatappa Naick v. Subba Naick ILR (1905) M. 179 the Court decided that a suit could be instituted to set aside a decree on the ground
that it had been obtained by false evidence tendered at the trial and by the suppression of evidence. On reference to the printed papers it appears
that the alleged suppression of evidence consisted in the non-production of a promissory note the very existence of which the defendant denied
when giving evidence in the case. There has been considerable difference of opinion in England as to whether an action would lie to set aside the
judgment of an English Court on the ground that it had been obtained by perjured evidence. In India the weight of authority appears to be in favour
of holding that such a suit will not lie for the reasons given by Sundara Ayyar, J. in Chinnayya v. Ramanna ILR (1912) Mad. 203 by the Calcutta
Court in Munshi Mosuful Huq v. Surendra Nath Ray 16 C.W.N 1002 and by the Allahabad Court in Janki Kuar v. Lachmi Narain ILR (1915)
All. 535 We are therefore of opinion that Venkatappa Naick v. Subba Naick ILR (1905) M. 179 was wrongly decided and must be overruled.