R. M. S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.:- Since common questions of law and facts arise in both these appeals, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Both these appeals have been filed against the dismissal of notices of motion taken out by the appellants-plaintiffs for decree on alleged admission by the original defendant No.3 about the rights of the appellants to the property in question.

3. It is the contention on behalf of the appellants that the respondent NO.3 (original defendant No.3) has admitted that the earlier decree was obtained by fraud and that defendant No. 3 has no right whatsoever to the property in question and that, therefore, on this admission itself, the appellants' claim of the ownership right to the property in question should be decreed as against the defendant No.3, invoking the provisions of Order XII, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

4. The claim of the appellants is disputed by other defendants while contending that the stand taken by the defendant No.2 in relation to the claim of ownership to the suit property by the appellants is in collusion with the latter to the detriment of the rights of the said defend