Raj Kishore Prasad, J.

1. This appeal, by the plaintiff, Tilakdhari Bhagat, is from the concurrent decisions of the courts below, dismissing his suit for setting aside the compromise decree, exhibit B, on the ground of fraud.

2. The sole question for determination, in the present appeal, is whether the grievance of the appellant that the finding of the court of appeal below that the compromise, exhibit B, was signed by the present plaintiff, then defendant 2 to the previous suit, is really based on a mere comparison of the signature of the plaintiff by the court itself and has been largely and mainly influenced by its own opinion, and, as such, it is not a legal finding which is binding in second appeal, is correct.

3. In order to determine this question, it is necessary to state briefly the material facts of the case having bearing on this question.

4. On the 20th October, 1950, the present plaintiff and his brother, Dhora Bhagat, defendant 2, are alleged to have jointly executed a handnote for Rs. 401, in favour of defendant 1, in lieu of an unpaid price of a bullock, alleged to have been purchased by Dhora, defendant 2, from defendant 1, because, the case of defendant 1,