The period of limitation for a suit under Order 21 Rule 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is one year from the date of the order passed by the executing court.

Tarkeshwar Nath, J.

1. This appeal by the plaintiffs arises out of a suit for declaration that they had l/3rd share (5 annas 4 Pies) in lands measuring 1.504 acres which at one time belonged to their father. They made a further prayer for being put in possession after dispossessing defendant No, 1. A short genealogy will indicate the relationship of the parties. Maulvi Mazhar Hussain alias Chamari and Nazir. Hussain were two brothers: Mazhar Hussain had two sons, viz., Hafiz Zafar Hussain and Dr. Aminuddin Ahmad (Defendant 7) besides two daughters, Mosammat Aziman and Mosammat Shakuran (Pltffs. 1 and 2). Defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of Hazif Zafar Hussain, defendant 4 is the widow and defendants 5 and 6 are his daughters. In the other branch, Nazir Hussain left a son Ahmad Zahirul Haque whose widow Mostt. saieha is defendant 1 in this action. Defendants 8 to 12 intervened in the suit as being transferees from defdt. 1. Plaintiffs case was that the land in suit belonged exclusively to Maulvi Mazhar Hussain and he was recorded In the record-of-rights. After his death, the plaintiff, Hatiz Zafar Hussain and defendant 7 came in possession of those lands as absolute owners. Defendant 1 instituted a title suit (No. 39/20 of 1949/1951) against defendants 2 to 7 without making the plaintiffs parties, praying therein for a decree for administration of the estate of Ahmad Zahirul Haque and other reliefs. The plaintiffs were not at all aware of that suit and there was a fraudulent compromise between the parties to that suit, according to which defendant l who was the plaintiff in that suit, got 1.504 acres (the lands in this suit) exclusively in her share. A final decree was prepared on the basis of that compromise on 13-5-1952 and defendant 1 took steps for the execution of that decree. A pleader commissioner was appointed for giving delivery of possession and he was accompanied by military police when he went to the spot. The plaintiffs then learnt of the suit, the collusive compromise and the decree and they filed a petition on 4-10-1953 before the Commissioner stating that they had l/3rd share in the lands of which possession was sought to be delivered to the decree-holder of that case.

The Commissioner however, submitted a report regarding symbolical delivery of possession and the plaintiffs being dispossessed, they filed an application on 9-11-1953 under Order 21 Rule 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Execution Case No. 22 of 1952. That application was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 42. of 1953, but that was dismissed on 14-5-1954. Defendant 1 disclosed in that miscellaneous case that there was a compromise in a land registration case as well to which plaintiffs were parties and they had, in fact, agreed to the terms of the compromise recorded in that case. The plaintiffs were surprised to learn of that compromise, inasmuch as that also was fraudulent and collusive and in no way binding, on them. The plaintiffs being aggrieved by the dismissal of their miscellaneous case filed an application in the High Court for revision of that order (Civil Revision no. 699 of 1954), but it was dismissed on 16-9-1954. The properties belonged exclusively to Mazhar Hussain and as such, the plaintiffs had l/3rd share in those lands, the other shares belonging to their two brothers and their descendants. On these allegations, they instituted this suit on 14-8-1955.

2. Defendant 1 took several pleas and her case was that the lands in suit belonged to both the brothers, viz., Mazhar Hussain and Nazir Hussain, but as former was the elder he happened to be recorded in the record-of-rights. After the death of the two brothers, the lands in suit and other lands came in possession of their heirs. A dispute arose sometime after the death of Mazhar Hussain between Hafiz Zafar Hussain, the plaintiffs and others, inasmuch as the heirs of IVIazhar Hussain claimed the properties recorded in his name as being his exclusive properties, whereas