Collusion

Collusion [fr. collusio, Lat., fr. colludo, to unite in the same play or game, and thus to unite for the purposes of fraud or deception], an agreement or compact between two or more persons to do some act in order to prejudice a third person, or for some improper purpose. Collusion in judicial proceedings is a secret agreement between two persons that the one should institute a suit against the other, in order to obtain the decision of a judicial tribunal for some sinister purpose, and appears to be of two kinds: (1) When the facts put forward as the foundation of the sentence of the Court do not exist; (2) When they exist, but have been corruptly preconcerted for the express purpose of obtaining the sentence. In either case the judgment obtained by such collusion is a nullity. See Duchess of Kingston's case, (1776) 2 Sm. L.C. Collusion between the petitioner and either of the respondents in presenting or prosecuting a suit for dissolution of marriage is a bar to such suit by the Judicature Act, 1925, s. 178, replacing the (English) Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857 (c. 85), ss. 30 and 31; and a collusive penal action is no bar to a bona fide penal action by virtue of 4 Hen. 7, c. 20; Chitty's Statute, tit. 'Penal Action'; and see Girdlestone v. Brighton Aquarium Co., (1978) 3 Ex D 137.

(ii) Collusion implies the existence of two or more parties who can deal with each other independently with the object of entering into an arrangement which may serve as a cloak to cover up the real state of affairs. When one party can dominate over the will of the other, it would not be a case of collusion but one of compulsion, V.S. Rahi v. Ram Chambeli (1984) 2 SCR 290(1984) 1 SCC 612: AIR 1984 SC 595 (599). (Delhi Rent Control Act (59 of 1958), s. 21)

(iii) Collusion, say Spencer-Bower and Turner (para 378), is essentially play-acting by two or more persons for one common purpose - a concerted performance of a fabula disguised as a judicium - an unreal and fictitious pretence of a contest by confederates whose game is the same. As stated by Lord Selborne, L.C. in Boswell v. Coaks, (1894) 6 Rep 167: 86 LT 365n (HL). There is no Judge; but a person invested with the ensigns of a judicial office, is misemployed in listening to a fictitious cause proposed to him, there is no party litigating ... no real interest brought into question and to use the words of a very sensible civilian on this point, fabula non judicium, hoc est; in scena, non in foro, res agitur. That is the true meaning of the word 'collusion' as applied to a judicial proceeding, Gram Panchayat of Village, Naulakha v. Ujagar Singh, (2000) 7 SCC 543.

'Collusion', say Spencer-Bower and Turner (para 378), is essentially play-acting by two or more persons for one common purpose--a concerted performance of a fabula disguised as a judicium- an unreal and fictitious pretence of a contest by confederates whose game is the same. As stated by Lord Selborne LC in Boswell v. Coaks, (1894) 6 Rep 167, there is no judge; but a person invested with the ensigns of a judicial office, is misemployed in listening to a fictitious cause proposed to him, there is no party litigation..........no real interest brought into question and to use the words of a very sensible civilian on this point, fabula non judicium, hoc est.; in scene, non in foro, res agitur, Gram Panchyat of Village Naulakha v. Ujagar Singh, AIR 2000 SC 3272 (3274). [Civil Procedure Code (5 of 1908), s. 11, Evidence Act, (1 of 1872), s. 44]

Collusion, is obvious and the collector and the appellate authority were having the necessary jurisdiction to decide that the earlier decree was collusive, Gram Panchayat of Village Naulakha v. Ujager Singh, (2000) 7 SCC 543.