S. Narain, J.

1. This application by plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 is directed against an order dated 3.8.1977, by which the learned Third Additional Subordinate judge, Gopalganj, has rejected the petition filed by petitioner No.1, Mst. Sanmatia (Plaintiff No.1) for setting aside the compromise petition filed on 21.9.1974.

2. The compromise petition was filed in a suit brought by plaintiff No.1, mst. Sanmatia, and her two minor children (Plaintiff Nos.2 and 3), besides one Sudhistha Prasad, who was plaintiff No.4. The main reliefs claimed in the suit were a declaration that the plaintiffs never executed the impugned sale-deed in favour of defendant no.1, Ramkuar Prasad Singh, and that the said sale-deed was not fit to be registered and an injunction restraining defendant no.1 from getting the aforesaid sale-deed registered. During the pendency of that suit in the court of the third Additional Subordinate Judge, Gopalganj, the suit had been numbered as Title Suit No.54 of 1967 a petition of compromise was filed on.21.9.1974 purporting to be on behalf of plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 and defendant No.1. Itpurported to bear the thumb-impression of Mst. Sanmatia, plaintiff No.1, on behalf of herself and her minor children, plaintiff Nos.2 and 3, and also the signature of one Shyam Badan Singh, Advocate for the plaintiffs. It was recited in the petition of compromise that plaintiff No.1, Mst. Sanmatia, had been a victim of fraud and misrepresentation and had been prevailed Upon to institute the suit and it had been now agreed between the parties that the disputed sale-deed in favour of defendant No.1 was genuine and valid executed by the plaintiffs, and by virtue of the said sale-deed, defendant No.1 would acquire sixteen annas title over the property which was the subject-matter of the sale-deed. Another term of the compromise was that both the parties would bear their own costs of the suit. On 21.9.1974 itself, another petition purporting to be on behalf of plaintiff No.1, Mst. Sonmatia, who had sued as next friend of her minor children, plaintiff Nos.2 and 3, was filed stating that the compromise was for the benefit of the minor plaintiffs Nos.2 and 3 and plaintiff No.1 be granted leave to compromise the suit On behalf of the minor plaintiffs. Both the compromise petition and the petition for leave to compromise the suit on behalf of minor plaintiffs were put up before learned Additional subordinate Judge on 25 11.1974 and the learned Additional Subordinate Judge on that date passed the following order (the order is in Hindi and what follows is the English translation thereof) :

"both parties have filed Hazris. The compromise petition on behalf of plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendant No.1 put up. The petition of the female plaintiff praying for permission to compromise on behalf of the minor plaintiffs is also put up. Permission as prayed for is granted. "

By the aforesaid order, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge also directed that the compromise petition should be put up at the time of hearing of the suit.

3 Thereafter, on the 2nd January, 1975, Plaintiff No.1, Mst. Sanmatia, filed an application praying to cancel the aforesaid compromise on the allegation that she had not entered into any compiomise with defendant No.1 or filed any compromise petition or affixed her thumb-impression or signed on any compromise petition, and that the only Advocate appointed by her in the suit was one Pandit Sheopujan Mishra ana that the compromise petition was forged and fabricated. It was also alleged in the said application that the children of plaintiff No.1, who were minors, had not been benefited by the compromise in any way. According to the plaintiff No.1, about a week prior to the filing of the application, she had learnt that defendant No.1 was going about mating that the suit had been decided in his favour and then she came to know of the aforesaid fraudulent compromise petition.

4. The application was contested by the defendants who denied t