ORDER S.N. Singh, J. - The dispute in the present case is in respect of Khata No. 366 of village Rura Khurd, Pargana Bidhuna, district Ecawan. This Khata was recorded in the names of the Petitioners in the basic year. The opposite party No. 5 filed an objection and claimed co tenure holder's right with the Petitioners and other opposite parties Nos. 3, 4 and 6 to 8. The claim of the opposite party No. 5 for co-tenancy was based amongst other grounds on a decree passed by the Judicial Officer in the year 1954 u/s 59 of the UP Tenancy Act. The claim of co-tenure holder's right was resisted by the Petitioners, who claimed to be sole tenure holders and alleged in the objection that the decree passed u/s 59 was obtained by fraud. It was specifically stated in the objection that the Petitioners had neither signed nor filed in court the written statement alleged to have been filed on their behalf. 2. On the pleadings of the parties the Consolidation Officer framed as many as five issues. Issues Nos. 4 and 5 were as follows: Issue No. 4:--Whether the judgment and decree of suit referred above is based on fraud? Issue No. 5:--Whether this Court has jurisdiction to decide the point of fraud? Having formulated the above two issues, the Consolidation Officer held that the Consolidation Officer was not competent to decide the question of fraud and it was beyond the jurisdiction of that authority. Having come to this conclusion, the Consolidation Officer held that the decree passed in suit u/s 59 operated as res judicata. Accordingly he rejected the Petitioners objection and held that the parties were co tenure holders. 3. An appeal was preferred against his decision and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) disagreed with the Consolidation Officer and held that the judgment passed in the year 1954 did not operate as res judicata between the parties and directed the Consolidation Officer to decide the case on merits. 4. A revision was preferred against his decision. The Director (Consolidation) set aside the judgment of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and restored that of the Consolidation Officer. 5. 4. A revision was preferred against his decision. The Director (Consolidation) set aside the judgment of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and restored that of the Consolidation Officer. 5. Aggrieved with the order of the Director (Consolidation) the present writ petition has been filed and it has been argued that the view of the Director (Consolidation) that the decision in proceedings u/s 59 of the UP Tenancy Act operated as res judicata is manifestly erroneous on the face of the record. It has further been contended that the consolidation authorities have erred in not deciding the question of fraud raised before them. 6. It appears that opposite parties Nos. 3 to 7 instituted a suit u/s 59 of the UP Tenancy Act before the revenue court claiming to be hereditary tenants along with the Petitioners. In this suit they gave the cause of action as May 1952. A written statement is said to have been filed on behalf of the Petitioners in the suit by which the Petitioners admitted the co tenancy right of the contesting opposite parties. On the basis of this admission by the Petitioners, the suit was decreed u/s 59 of the. UP Tenancy Act declaring both the parties as co-tenants. This decree was made a basis of the claim by opposite party No. 5 in the instant case. This decree was challenged by tie Petitioners on the ground of fraud and it was stated that they had neither filed the written statement nor had admitted the claim. It was specifically stated that this decree was obtained by fraud. The Consolidation Officer or the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) or the Director (Consolidation) did not decide this question of fraud. Unless this question of fraud was determined, it could not be said whether this decree was binding between the parties or not. The consolidation authorities were, in my opinion, quite competent to decide whether the decree had been obtained by fraud or not. It is well settled that fraud vitiates all solemn proceedings if a decree is obtained by fraud, even though from a competent court, is not binding between the parties. The question of fraud can be raised in any proceeding whosesoever a decree is sought to be relied on as a good decree. A revenue court or consolidation authorities, in my opinion, are competent to determine the question of fraud raised before them. The question of fraud can be raised in any proceeding whosesoever a decree is sought to be relied on as a good decree. A revenue court or consolidation authorities, in my opinion, are competent to determine the question of fraud raised before them. This is the settled view of this Court. This decision of mine finds support from a Division Bench decision of this Court in Jagarnath Shukla v. Sita Ram Pandey 1969 AWR 435 . In this view of the matter the Consolidation authorities erred in not deciding the question of fraud raised by the Petitioners. 7. Mr. V.K.S. Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the contesting opposite parties, submitted that in this case the claim of the contesting opposite parties, was admitted by one of the Petitioners at the first instance and after two or three years after, the claim was denied by the Petitioner No. 2. He also referred to paragraph No. 7 of his counter affidavit wherein it was asserted that every thing was almost admitted before the consolidation authorities themselves. These points relate to the merit of the case and if it is so, the consolidation authorities will decide in favour of the contesting opposite parties or the Petitioners as the case may be. The points raised by Mr. Chaudhary are questions relating to the merit and it will be proper to be addressed before the Consolidation Officer when the case goes back before him. 8. Mr. B. Dixit for the Petitioners, challenged the decision of the Judicial Officer u/s 59 of the UP Tenancy 'Act' to be a decision without jurisdiction. If this was the only point raised by Mr. Dixit I would have no hesitation in repelling his contention, but it is because of the fraud asserted to by the Petitioners that I am sending back the case for fresh decision. The fate of the case depends on the question as to whether the Petitioners had filed the written statement and a decree had been passed after a valid written statement bad been filed in the revenue court. If once it is held that they had filed a written statement admitting the claim of the contesting opposite parties, there is an end of the matter. No other question can be raised by the Petitioners. 9. There is a difference between jurisdiction of a court and maintain-ability of a suit. If once it is held that they had filed a written statement admitting the claim of the contesting opposite parties, there is an end of the matter. No other question can be raised by the Petitioners. 9. There is a difference between jurisdiction of a court and maintain-ability of a suit. What this Court has held in Shital Prasad v. Board of Revenue UP 1962 AWR 96 is that the suit for a declaration of tenancy right is not maintainable in the revenue court after the passing of the UP ZA and LR Act. This decision is not an authority for the proposition that the revenue court had no jurisdiction for declaring a person as a tenant. It has only held that such a suit was not maintainable. If a suit for declaration was filed and question of jurisdiction was not agitated rather the claim of the Plaintiffs was admitted and a decree is passed, such a decree is binding on the parties and neither party in such a case can assert that the decree is not binding on him. Since I am of the opinion that the question of fraud had not been determined by the consolidation authorities, which they were competent to decide, the case has to be decided afresh by the consolidation authorities. 10. Accordingly I allow this writ petition and quash the orders of the Director of Consolidation dated Jape 22 1968, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) dated April 15, 1968 which merged in the decision of the Director and the Consolidation Officer dated February 27, 1968. The Consolidation Officer is hereby directed to decide issues Nos. 4 and 5 along with other issues framed by him in the Tight of the observations made above. The Consolation Officer, will permit the parties to lead evidence on the question of fraud.