It is submit that it is well settled law as declared by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 1994(1) SCC 1 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that fraud vitiates everything at any stage of the proceedings this proposition of law squarely covers the issue on the hand which is reproduced below: . “Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal” observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago. It is the settled proposition of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non est. in the eyes of law. Such a judgment/decree by the first court or by the highest court has to be treated as a nullity by every court, whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings. Supreme Court of India in S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu v/s Jagannath, 1994 AIR 853, 1994 SCC (1) 1 has said that a litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party. All courts, tribunal and authorities have inherent power to recall its orders in case these obtained by fraud. The Supreme Court has held that judgment can be recalled in case of fraud. Where judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi was based on letter No.2776, was obtained by the Respondent by practicing fraud, the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd. 1996(5) SCC 550 held that that the Authorities, be they Constitutional, Statutory or Administrative, (and particularly those who have to decide a lis) possess the power to recall their judgments or orders if they are obtained by fraud. It is therefore axiomatic that in India, the judicial, quasi judicial and administrative authorities have inherent powers to recall their orders or proceedings at a latter point of time if it is shown that such order was obtained by playing fraud and misrepresentation. The question of applicability of law of limitation to exercise such inherent power by the administrative authorities does not arise because fraud unravels every thing rendering a fraudulent order void and non-existent. To our mind, this principle in a different manner is also adumbrated in Section 21 of General clauses Act, 1897 (Central Act No. X of 1897 ). Under the said provision, an authority who has power to issue, inter alia orders has also power to rescind such order. In the considered opinion of this Court if a person sells away the property belonging to other, it would certainly be fraud on the statute. It would be adding insult to injury, if such person is asked to go to civil Court and get the subsequent sale deed cancelled or seek a declaration. Be it also noted that under common law, as discussed supra, the title of a person remains intact even if a stranger conveys that title to another stranger, which is ineffective