(1) Whether the trial court can pass a decree for declaration that the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 138 of 1998 is null and void having passed against some of the co-sharers, who admittedly died prior to the preliminary decree?
(2) Whether both the courts below erred in passing the partial decree declaring the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 138 of 1998 as null and void even after holding that the plaintiffs have failed to establish their title in respect of the subject
property?
(3) Whether the court of appeal below ought to have reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court even in absence of any cross-objection having filed by the plaintiffs when admittedly the defendant/appellant in the written statement admitted the ownership of the subject property possessed by Sripati Bhattacharya and all the parties
claimed their right, title and interest in respect thereof as successors of the said owner?
(4) Whether both the courts below were justified in their approach in dealing with the partition suit in refusing to pass preliminary decree when there is a categorical
admission of the defendant that the plaintiffs traced their title from a common owner?
(5) Whether a decree declaring the judgment and decree passed in an earlier suit to be null and void can be made in a suit instituted by a third party, who is neither a party in that suit nor a legal representative?
