Limitation errors do not void jurisdictionally valid decrees, while sham transfers and Bench-strength objections failed.

A decree passed by a court with jurisdiction is not rendered a nullity merely because limitation was wrongly decided; the error remains one for appeal and cannot be ignored later. The suit was treated as within limitation because it had been filed in time, the plaint was returned and re-presented in the proper court, and the period spent in bona fide prosecution in the wrong court was deductible. The assignment and sale transactions were found to be sham, unsupported by real consideration or effective transfer. The appellant also had no vested right to insist that the High Court appeal be heard by a larger Bench.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the decree obtained in the earlier suit was a nullity because the suit was allegedly barred by limitation; (ii) whether the present suit was barred by limitation, including the effect of the earlier proceeding and the return and re-presentation of the plaint; (iii) whether the assignment and sale transactions relied upon by the appellant were genuine or merely sham transactions; (iv) whether the appellant was entitled to complain that the appeal in the High Court ought to have been heard by a larger Bench.

Issue (i): Whether the decree obtained in the earlier suit was a nullity because the suit was allegedly barred by limitation.

Analysis: A decree passed by a court having jurisdiction over the subject-matter and the parties does not become a nullity merely because limitation was wrongly decided. A failure to apply the limitation law correctly is an error of law, remediable in appeal or other prescribed procedure, but it does not strip the court of jurisdiction. The peremptory nature of the limitation provision does not convert an erroneous decree into one passed without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The decree was not a nullity and could not be ignored in later proceedings.

Issue (ii): Whether the present suit was barred by limitation, including the effect of the earlier proceeding and the return and re-presentation of the plaint.

Analysis: The plea of limitation was treated as insufficiently raised on the facts, and the point was further held to be a mixed question of law and fact. The Court also accepted that the suit had originally been filed within time, that the plaint was later returned for presentation to the proper court, and that the period spent in bona fide prosecution in the wrong court was deductible. On the evidence regarding possession after the criminal proceeding, the Court found actual delivery to the auction-purchaser and rejected the contention that the suit was out of time.

Conclusion: The suit was held to be within limitation.

Issue (iii): Whether the assignment and sale transactions relied upon by the appellant were genuine or merely sham transactions.

Analysis: The Court found the assignment of the hypothecation bond to be unsupported by proof of real consideration or effective transfer, and significant surrounding circumstances showed it to be a device to screen the asset from creditors. The sale in favour of the appellant was also viewed as suspicious, unsupported by independent evidence of consideration, and inconsistent with the surrounding conduct and possession. On these facts, both transactions were treated as not genuine.

Conclusion: The assignment and sale were held to be sham transactions.

Issue (iv): Whether the appellant was entitled to complain that the appeal in the High Court ought to have been heard by a larger Bench.

Analysis: The right of appeal was held to be governed by the law in force after the merger and enactments governing the new High Court. The Court further held that the number of judges constituting the Bench is a matter of procedure and that no party has a vested right to have an appeal heard by a particular number of judges unless a statute so provides in terms that survive the later legislative changes.

Conclusion: The appellant had no enforceable right to insist on a larger Bench.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's decree was upheld in full, and the appeal failed on all material grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: An erroneous decision on limitation by a court having jurisdiction does not render the decree a nullity, and a party has no vested right to a particular appellate Bench strength unless such a right is preserved by operative law.

---