Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as respondents.

2. The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 30.07.2016 passed by the learned District Judge-I, Deoghar in Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2003 whereby the learned Appellate Court has set aside the judgment and decree dated 02.05.1987 and 10.08.1987 respectively in Title Suit No. 39 of 1977 and remanded the suit after deciding issue of Respondent-judicata.

3. The plaintiffs-respondents have filed the suit for partition being Title Suit No. 39 of 1977 of the suit properties fully described in the schedule of the plaint and for declaration that the judgment and decree in Title Suit No. 148 of 1963 and Title Suit No. 107 of 1965 of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Deoghar are void, illegal, inoperative, fraudulent and not binding on the plaintiff.

4. The fact as disclosed by the plaintiffs in the suit was that the plaintiff and defendants are the members of the joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshra School of Hindu Law. It was also stated that the properties described in schedule of the plaint are the joint family properties and no partition of the properties have been taken place till date. All the family members are jointly enjoying and possessing the property and they are coparceners till date.

5. It has been further alleged that original defendant no. 1 wanted to dispose of the properties and accordingly, dispute has arisen and the present suit has been filed. It has been further stated that written statement filed in Title (P) Suit No. 148 of 1963 by the original defendant no. 1 and the Second Title Suit No. 107 of 1965 filed by the grand-mother of the plaintiff as alleged that the judgment and decree has been obtained by playing fraud and fraudulent, clandestine manner upon the plaintiff and the court. Therefore, the same is not binding on the plaintiff as neither he was party in those proceedings nor he has any knowledge regarding the same.

6. All defendants have appeared and filed their written statement. In written statement, defence has been taken that the suit is barred by resjudicata as issue has already been settled in Title (P) Suit No. 148 of 1963 in which final decree was passed on 16.06.1975 on the basis of compromise petition dated 27.04.1968 filed by the parties. Plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property.

7. It has been further stated that the some properties were allotted as share of the plaintiff’s father and uncle in Title (P) Suit No. 148 of 1963.

8. The Trial Court has framed eight issues, which are as follows:-

(i) Is the suit as framed maintainable ?

(ii) Has the plaintiff got valid cause of action for the suit ?

(iii) Is the suit barred by law of limitation ?

(iv) Is the suit barred by principle of resjudicata ?

(v) Is their unity of title and possession of the parties over the suit property ?

(vi) Is the decree passed in Title Suit No. 149/1963 and 107/1965 fradulent, nullity and inoperative and not binding on the plaintiff?

(vii) Is the property standing in the name of defendant Prabhawati Devi liable for partition ?

(viii) To what relief or reliefs if any the plaintiff is entitled ?”

9. The Trial Court after taking evidence and hearing the parties has returned the findings on all the issues against the plaintiff and accordingly the suit has been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 02.05.1987 and 10.08.1987 respectively.

10. Being aggrieved the plaintiff/respondent herein has preferred the appeal before the Appellate Court being Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2003.

11. The Appellate Court has framed three points for consideration, which are as follows:-

(I) Whether the judgment and decree passed in the earlier suit No. 148/1963 was a compromise decree?

(II) Whether fraud was practiced by the Gouri Nath Thakur in the earlier suit in obtaining the judgment and decree?

(III) Whether the principle of res judicata is applicable against the plaintiff/appellant and is thus barred from filing afresh suit?”

12. From bare perusal of the po