AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sir John Wallis Kt., C.J.—In Venkatappa Naick v. Subba Naick (1906) ILR 29 Mad. 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, however, to the printed papers it appears that the alleged suppression of evidence consisted merely 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 Sundra Ayyar, J., in Chinnayya v. Ramanna I.L.R.(1915) Mad. 203 by the Calcutta Court in Munshi Mosuful Huq v. Surendra Nath Roy (1912) 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 I.L.R.(1906) Mad. 179 was wrongly decided and must be overruled.