JUDGMENT : A.K. RATH, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31.3.1988 and 16.4.1988 respectively of the learned Additional District Judge, Bhadrak in Title Appeal No. 19/299 of 1978/87 confirming the judgment and decree dated 20.7.1978 and 27.7.1978 respectively passed by the learned Munsif, Bhadrak in O.S. No. 28 of 1975-I. 2. The plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration that the decrees passed in O.S. No. 169 of 1955-I and O.S. No. 303 of 1964-I do not affect the interest of them in the suit property as they were not made parties in those suits and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants not to interfere with the possession of plaintiffs over the suit properties. 3. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit land is the ancestral homestead land of their grandfather, Netra Mahalik. After death of Netra, the suit land was recorded in the name of their father, Ekadashi Mahalik and his elder brother, Nisakar Mahalik in C.S. record of right. Ankur Mahalik, father of defendant nos. 2 to 6 and his brother Sankar Mahalik were recorded as sikimi tenants in C.S. operation but they were never in possession. The ancestors of the plaintiffs and, thereafter the plaintiffs are in possession. Ankur and his brother Sankar had filed O.S. No. 169 of 1955-I in the court of the learned Munsif, Bhadrak against the father of the plaintiffs without impleading the plaintiffs, who were major then. A compromise was entered into between them. After death of Ankur and Sankar, defendant nos. 1 to 6 had filed O.S. No. 303 of 1964-I for partition. They were not parties to the said suit. They came to know about O.S. No. 169 of 1955-I on 28.2.1975 when the Commissioner went to deliver possession in Execution Case No. 30 of 1970. 4. Pursuant to issuance of notice, defendants 1 to 6 entered appearance and filed written statement. The case of the defendants was that Kali Mahalik, the grandfather of defendant nos. 2 to 6 and his brother, Dhoi Mahalik were recorded as sikimi tenants in respect of Ac.0.15 decimals of land appertaining to suit plot no. 1876. Nisakar and his brother Ekadasi (father of the plaintiffs) were the stihitiban tenants. In O.S. No. 169 of 1955-I, a compromise was entered into, by which Ac.0.14 decimals of land towards south of the suit plot no. 1876. Nisakar and his brother Ekadasi (father of the plaintiffs) were the stihitiban tenants. In O.S. No. 169 of 1955-I, a compromise was entered into, by which Ac.0.14 decimals of land towards south of the suit plot no. 1876 was allotted to the share of Ankur and Sankar, whereas Ac.0.01 decimals of land towards south of the suit plot no. 1876 was allotted to the share of defendants No. 7, 9, 10 and one Gangadhar, brother of defendant No. 10. O.S. No. 303 of 1964-I was filed for partition of the suit properties, in which their title was declared. Defendant No. 7 was in good state of mind. The compromise decree passed in O.S. No. 169 of 1955-I was not fraudulent. The defendant nos. 7 to 10 have been set ex-parte. 5. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court struck eight issues, which are quoted hereunder:- 1. Have the plaintiffs any cause of action? 2. Were Kali Mahalik, Dhoi Mahalik not in possession of the suit land as alleged? 3. Were the plaintiffs major at the time of O.S. No. 169 of 1955-I? 4. Did the defendant No. 7 represent the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 169 of 1955-I and O.S. No. 303 of 1964-I as Karta of the joint family? 5. Was the compromise in O.S. No. 169 of 1955-I effected fraudulently by Ankur and Sankar? 6. Are the plaintiffs separate from their parents and if so when? 7. Have the plaintiffs any right, title, interest and possession in the suit land? 8. To what relief, if any, the plaintiffs are entitled? 6. The learned trial court came to hold that the admission of P.W.1 completely belies the allegation of fraud. The plaintiffs have failed to discharge the onus. Findings of the earlier judgment in O.S. No. 303 of 1964-I would operate as res-judicata since Issue No. 5 of the suit was directly and substantially in issue in an earlier suit between the same parties and, accordingly, answered Issue No. 5 against the plaintiffs. It further held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove separation by clear, cogent and impeccable evidence and the said issue was answered against the plaintiffs. It further held that the plaintiffs had not adduced any evidence that they had attained majority in the year 1955. Accordingly, Issue No. 3 was answered against the plaintiffs. It further held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove separation by clear, cogent and impeccable evidence and the said issue was answered against the plaintiffs. It further held that the plaintiffs had not adduced any evidence that they had attained majority in the year 1955. Accordingly, Issue No. 3 was answered against the plaintiffs. The defendant No. 7 cannot be said to be a man or mentally deranged person. Accordingly Issue No. 4 was answered against the plaintiffs. With regard to Issue nos. 2 and 7, the learned trial court held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their possession over the suit land. On the other hand, the contesting defendants have produced the documentary evidence to prove their continuous and uninterrupted possession of the suit land. The forefathers of the defendants had perfected title by virtue of Section 236 of Orissa Tenancy Act. Held so, the learned trial court decreed the suit. The plaintiffs have unsuccessfully challenged the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court before the learned Additional District Judge in Title Appeal No. 19/299 of 1978/87, which was eventually dismissed. 7. The second appeal was admitted on 4.9.1990 to answer the substantial questions of law enumerated in paragraphs 3 (A) and 3 (B) and ground no. 5 of the memorandum of appeal. However, paragraphs 3 (A) and 3 (B) are findings of the lower appellate court. The substantial question of law enumerated in ground no. 5 of the memorandum of appeal is as follows:- “5. For that the defendant No. 7 was not impleaded as the Karta of the family consisting of the defendant No. 7 and the present plaintiff-appellants in the O.S. No. 169 of 1955 and O.S. No. 303 of 1964 and as such the decree passed in both the suits cannot bind the appellants. (Section 253 of Hindu Law by Mulla) and the interest of the plaintiffs remained ineffective when they were not made parties to the suits.” 8. O.S. No. 169 of 1955-I was instituted by Ankur Mahalik and Sankar Mahalik son of Kali Mahalik against Ekadasi Mahalik son of Netra Mahalik, Sukadei and Golak Mahalik (widow and son of Nisakar) in the court of the learned Munsif, Bhadrak. The suit was decreed. O.S. No. 169 of 1955-I was instituted by Ankur Mahalik and Sankar Mahalik son of Kali Mahalik against Ekadasi Mahalik son of Netra Mahalik, Sukadei and Golak Mahalik (widow and son of Nisakar) in the court of the learned Munsif, Bhadrak. The suit was decreed. Though the plaintiffs assert that they were major at the time of institution of the suit, but then they have not challenged the judgment and decree dated 19.11.1956 and 30.11.1956 respectively passed in O.S. No. 169 of 1955-1. Section 59 of the Limitation Act applies to a suit setting aside the decree either on the ground of fraud or any other ground. The period of limitation is three years. The judgment and decree in O.S. No. 169 of 1955-I has not been challenged within the prescribed period of limitation. 9. In the State of Kerala vs. M.K. Kunhikannan Nambiar, AIR 1996 SC 906 . The apex Court held that even a void order or decision rendered between parties cannot be said to be non-existent in all cases and in all situations. Ordinarily, such an order will, in fact be effective inter parties until it is successfully avoided or challenged in higher forum. Mere use of the word "void" is not daterminative of its legal impact. The word "void" has a relative rather than an absolute meaning. It only conveys the idea that the order is invalid or illegal. It can be avoided. There are degrees of invalidity, depending upon the gravity of the infirmity, as to whether it is, fundamental or otherwise. The apex Court went in depth into the jurisprudential concept of ‘void’ and ‘voidable’ and held thus: “7. In Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th edition, (Reissue) Volume 1(1) in paragraph 26, page 31, it is stated, thus:- "If an act or decision, or an order or other instrument is invalid, it should, in principle, be null and void for all purposes; and it has been said that there are no degrees of nullity. Even though such an act is wrong and lacking in jurisdiction, however, it subsists and remains fully effective unless and until it is set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction. Until its validity is challenged, its legality is preserved." In the Judicial Review of Administrative Action, De Smith. Even though such an act is wrong and lacking in jurisdiction, however, it subsists and remains fully effective unless and until it is set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction. Until its validity is challenged, its legality is preserved." In the Judicial Review of Administrative Action, De Smith. Woolf and Jowell, 1995 edition, at pages 259-260 the law is stated, thus:- "The erosion of the distinction between jurisdictional errors and non-jurisdictional errors has, as we have seen, correspondingly eroded the distinction between void and voidable decisions. The courts have become increasingly impatient with the distinction, to the extent that the situation today can be summarised as follows: (1) All official decisions are presumed to be valid until set aside or otherwise held to be invalid by a court of competent Jurisdiction." Similarly, Wade and Forsyth in Administrative Law, Seventh edition-1994, have stated the law thus at pages 341-342:- "…….every unlawful administrative act, however invalid, is merely voidable. But this is no more than the truism that in most situations the only way to resist unlawful action is by recourse to the law. In a well-known passage Lord Racliffe said: An order, even if not made in good faith, is still an act capable of legal consequences. It bears no brand of invalidity upon its forehead. Unless the necessary proceedings are taken at law to establish the cause of invalidity and to get it quashed or otherwise upset, it will remain as effective for its ostensible purpose as the most impeccable of orders. This must be equally true even where the brand of invalidity is plainly visible: for there also the order can effectively be resisted in law only by obtaining the decision of the court. The necessity of recourse to the court has been pointed out repeatedly in the House of Lords and Privy Council without distinction between patent and latent defects." 10. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the apex Court in the case of M.K. Kunhikannan Nambiar (supra), the inescapable conclusion is that the plaintiffs are bound by the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 169 of 1955-I. In the subsequent suit i.e., O.S. No. 303 of 1964-I filed by the legal heirs of Ankur and Sankar for partition, the plaintiffs are neither necessary nor proper parties. 11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.