IMPORTANT POINT
There is no period of limitation against judgment and decree which is a nullity.

S.K. Gangele, J.—This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 06/09/2014 by which the court admitted the first appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 against the judgment and decree dated 28/07/2006 passed in Civil Suit No.585/2006.

2. The present petitioner and respondent No. 2 filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. They pleaded that father of the plaintiffs were in possession on the suit land in the year 1943-44 on the basis of an Inayatnama. During life time their father bequeathed the suit property by Hiba on 31st August, 1964 in favour of plaintiffs. The possession of the suit property was also handed over to the plaintiffs, since then the plaintiffs were in possession on the suit property.

3. The plaintiff inspected the revenue record and in the revenue record the name of respondent No. 1 Mehar Taj Smt. Sajida Sultan ruler of Bhopal was recorded as Bhoomiswami and the defendant No. 2. Mohammad Mansoor Ali Khan was the son of respondent No. 1 Mehar Taj Smt. Sajida Sultan.

4. Defendant no. 1 Mohammad Israr in his written statement pleaded that the plaintiffs are the owner of 2.35 acres of land and remaining portion of the land area 0.25 acres is in the possession of defendant No. 1. In the aforesaid suit, defendant No. 2 was ex-parte. On the basis of pleadings of the plaintiffs and the written statement filed by the defendant No. 1, the trial court has held that the suit land was given on Inayatnama to the father of the plaintiffs by Nabab Hameedullah Khan and Mehar Taj Smt. Sajida Sultan consented the said Inayatnama and thereafter father of the plaintiffs Mr. Mumtaz Mohammad Khan by Hibanama had given the suit land to the plaintiff since then they had been in possession on the suit land area 2.35 acres. Consequently, the trial court issued permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and also declared that the plaintiffs are the owner of the suit land.

5. In the aforesaid proceedings, the respondent No. 1 Begum Sabiha Sultan was not a party. When she noticed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, she filed first appeal. She pleaded that Nawab Mehar Taj Smt. Sajida Sultan expired on 04/09/1995 leaving following heirs:

Mehar Taj Smt. Sajida Sultan

*

***

Late Mansoor Ali Begum Sabiha Sultan Begum Saleha Sultan

Khan Patodi (son) (Daughter) (Daughter)

* (appellant) (Respondent No.8)

*

****

Smt. Sharmila Saif Ali Khan Ku. Sabah Ali Ku. Soha Ali

Tagore (Son) (Daughter) (Daughter)

(Widow)

(Respondent No.4) (Respondent No.5) (Respondent No.6) (Respondent No.7)

She was owner and Bhoomiswami of the suit land along with other properties. The plaintiffs by playing fraud on the Court obtained the decree of declaration, title and permanent injunction by suppressing certain facts to the effect that the name of late Nawab Taj Smt. Sajida Sultan was recorded as Bhoomiswami in revenue record and earlier a civil suit No. 106/A/2003 was filed in regard to the same property. It was renumbered as Civil Suit No. 48-A/2004. The suit was instituted against Sabir Ali Asfaq Ali and State of M.P. and subsequently name of Mansoor Ali Khan Patodi was also added as party. The suit was decided vide judgment and decree dated 24/03/2005.

6. The suit was instituted by Kamar Mohammad Khan and Smt. Ashiya Sultan for declaration and permanent injunction. It was pleaded by the plaintiffs that the land was gifted to their father Mumtaz Mohammad Khan on 01.08.1944 by the then Nawab of Bhopal. Thereafter, the father of plaintiffs gifted the suit land to them on 31.08.1964. Since then the plaintiffs were in possession on the suit land. In the aforesaid Civil Suit No.48-A/2004 Sabir Ali, Ashfaq Ali, Mohammad Asrar Ali and Mansoor Ali Khan Patodi were the parties. Defendants No.1, 2, 4 and 5 were exparte in the aforesaid civil suit. A photocopy of the judgment dated 24.03.2005 passed in Civil Suit No.48-A/2004 has been filed in this revision as Annexure R/3 by the respondents. The Additiona