The main legal point established is that failure to raise jurisdictional objections and the suit being time-barred, along with known allegations of fraud, do not provide valid grounds for challenging a decree.

AJAY TEWARI, J.- CM Nos. 12903-C and 12904-C of 2008 For the reasons recorded in the applications, the delay of 126 days in filing and 22 days in refiling the present appeal are condoned. CMs stand disposed of.

RSA No. 4342 of 2008

This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant challenging the preliminary decree for rendition of accounts to which he was a party and which was ultimately affirmed up to this Court. The ground taken in the present suit was that in the earlier suit the respondents did not mention that the property had been partitioned and that is how they obtained the decree by fraud. Learned counsel is not in a position to deny that the appellant was a party in that suit. Learned Lower Appellate Court has rightly held that in those circumstances there could be only two alternatives viz. (i) either the appellant took this plea in the earlier suit-in which case the present suit would be barred by res judicata and (ii) that the appellant did not take this plea in the previous suit-in which case the plea in the present suit would be barred by Order 2 Rule 2 C.P.C.

The following questions have been proposed:-

i) Whether the courts below committed an error in law dismissing the suit holding that appellant-plaintiff failed to take the plea of jurisdiction before the courts below which is contrary to the settled legal proposition that jurisdictional objection regarding subject matter can be raised at any stage of the suit?

ii) Whether courts below committed an error in law dismissing the suit of the appellant-plaintiff holding the same time barred when no time limit applies for challenging the Coram non judice matters as in the present case?

iii) Whether courts below committed an error in law and acted beyond jurisdiction while decreeing suit for rendition of accounts on a subject matter which was not part of HUF corpus of property?

iv) Whether HUF property admittedly partitioned already, could be declared joint property by courts below without reunion/reforming/recreating of HUF status of family by appellant and respondents?

v) Whether a joint Hindu family, once partitioned can be repartitioned without restoring HUF status according to legal provisions as applicable in legal framework?

vi) Whether to decree the suit for rendition of accounts without getting title to suit property (sale certificate PW4/1) set aside and a declaration of suit property as HUF property is within jurisdiction of courts below and such suit maintainable?

vii) Whether courts below committed an error in law dismissing the suit of the appellant-plaintiff holding the same as time barred when preliminary decree (Ex.PW5/35) under challenge got merged into second preliminary decree (PW5/36) thereby suit of the appellant-plaintiff again within limitation?

viii) Whether to decree the suit for rendition of accounts (by treating the suit property as HUF property) after the apportionment of compensation by competent authority (against requisition and acquisition) to the title holders to the suit property, is within jurisdiction of the courts below where respondents admittedly acquiesced the apportionment and never challenged said apportionment before competent authority and same attained finality?

ix) Whether issue of right, title or interest of the appellant-plaintiff (after obtaining finality under governing Acts for the purpose) could be decreed by courts below for sharing of compensation with those having no title, right or interest in suit property and in derogation of findings recorded by competent authority under governing Acts?

x) Whether judgment and decree passed by courts below stand vitiated by non consideration ignoring the material evidence (Ex. Px1, Px2) passed by learned Civil Judge Sh. G.K. Rai (though noted)?

xi)Whether non disclosure and concealment of material fact i.e. HUF status already ceased to exist since 1957, as asserted and admitted by respon