JUDGMENT

 The appeal lie in a short compass. The appellants are the legal representatives of defendants Nos. 7 to 9. The respondents plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2, filed T. S. No. 66/58 on October 7, 1958 to declare that the compromise decree made in T. S. No. 72/26 is null and void and does not bind them. The trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal, while holding the allegations that the compromise was obtained by playing fraud on the plaintiff was not proved, it was allowed on the ground that it does not bind the plaintiff. As stated earlier, the trial Court after going into the evidence dismissed the suit holding that the decree was not obtained by fraud and that, therefore, the decree was valid and is binding on them. In T.S. No. 1962/62, the appellate Court also recorded the finding that the compromise was not vitiated by fraud, but since defendants Nos. 7 to 9 have no right in the property, the family arrangement in the compromise was not valid and that, therefore, it does not bind the plaintiffs. Accordingly it reversed the decree of the trial Court and decreed the suit by Judgment and decree dated September 15, 1971.

2. The appellants carried the matter in Second Appeal No. 63/72.