https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183282 A final decree upholding an alienation binds the parties to the suit and their assignees, so a later assignee cannot dispute the plaintiff's title to redeem the mortgaged properties. An objection that the earlier decree was passed by a court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction does not amount to a collateral challenge to an inherently void decree and cannot defeat the decree after finality has attached. As the vendor had already conveyed his rights and no enforceable interest remained in the later assignee, he had no equity of redemption to confine redemption to a fractional share. The plaintiff was entitled to redeem the entire properties. en-us Mon, 19 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Jun 2016 15:02:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183282 A final decree upholding an alienation binds the parties to the suit and their assignees, so a later assignee cannot dispute the plaintiff's title to redeem the mortgaged properties. An objection that the earlier decree was passed by a court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction does not amount to a collateral challenge to an inherently void decree and cannot defeat the decree after finality has attached. As the vendor had already conveyed his rights and no enforceable interest remained in the later assignee, he had no equity of redemption to confine redemption to a fractional share. The plaintiff was entitled to redeem the entire properties. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 19 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183282