https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282572 A suit attacking a mortgage decree alleged to have been obtained by fraud was treated as one in substance to set aside the decree and the sale held in execution of it. Because the decree was passed by a court of competent jurisdiction, it was voidable, not a nullity, and remained binding until avoided in proper proceedings. The sale could not be challenged without first removing the decree that supported it. As the plaintiffs had knowledge of the decree and sale more than three years before filing suit, Article 95 of the Limitation Act applied and the claim was barred; it could not be treated as a mere declaratory suit under Article 120. en-us Thu, 19 Mar 1925 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Aug 2019 14:16:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282572 A suit attacking a mortgage decree alleged to have been obtained by fraud was treated as one in substance to set aside the decree and the sale held in execution of it. Because the decree was passed by a court of competent jurisdiction, it was voidable, not a nullity, and remained binding until avoided in proper proceedings. The sale could not be challenged without first removing the decree that supported it. As the plaintiffs had knowledge of the decree and sale more than three years before filing suit, Article 95 of the Limitation Act applied and the claim was barred; it could not be treated as a mere declaratory suit under Article 120. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 19 Mar 1925 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282572