R.N.Prasad, J.

1. The Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 10-4-1991 passed in F.A. No. 300/81 whereby the judgment and decree dated 16-5.1981 passed in T.S. No. 66/46 of 1978/80 declaring the compromise judgment and decree passed on 12-1-1978 in T.S. No. 33/77 null and void, has been reversed.

2. During pendency of Letters Patent Appeal, Appellant No. 1, namely, Ram Udgar Mahto and Respondent No. 1, namely, Ram Prasad, Rai died., Their heirs were substituted. However, Ram Udgar Mahto and Ram Prasad Rai hereinafter shall be referred to as Appellant No. 1 and Respondent No. 1 respectively for the sake of brevity and clarity.

3. Ram Prasad Rai (deceased) Respondent No. 1, filed T.S. No. 33/77 against the appellants for specific performance of contract stating therein that the Appellant No. 1, Ram Udgar Mahto (deceased) who was in need of money for paying sudbharana money approached him for sale of 2 bighas 12 kathas 12 1/2 dhoors of land described in schedule A of the plaint for a consideration of Rs. 10200.00 he agreed to purchase the land and accordingly Ram Udgar Mahto, the Appellant No. 1 executed a deed of agreement on 5-9-1974. AT the time of execution of agreement he paid Rs. 8000.00 and the remaining amount was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed within the specified period. Appellant No. 1 again approached him for sale of 1 bigha 3 kathas of land, details of which are mentioned in schedule B, for consideration of Rs. 46000.00 . He agreed to purchase and accordingly Appellant No. 1 executed a deed of agreement on 7-10-1976. Out of the consideration money, he paid Rs. 40007- at the time of execution of agreement and balance amount was to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed within the specified period. He was also put in possession of the land in question in part performance of contract. The Appellant No. 1 also handed over the documents with respect to title of the land is question i.e. the land described in schedule A & B. He was always, willing and ready to perform his part of agreement but the appellants were avoiding to executed the sale-deed and as such he sent a registered legal notice dated 19-4-1977 requesting the Appellant No. 1 to executed sale deeds after receiving the balance amount but he knowing about the notice refused to receive the same and as such suit was filed for specific performance of contract.

4. The Appellant No. 1, Ram Udgar Mahto, on service of notice appeared in the suit through lawyer and on deposit of guardian costs one Permanand Maharaj, Advocate was appointed guardian ad-litem for minor Appellant No. 2. Subsequently a compromise petition signed by the parties and their lawyers was filed on 8-10-1977 and a compromise decree was passed on 12-1-1978.

5. The suit i.e., T.S. No. 66/78 out of which the Letter Patent Appeal arises was filed by Ram Udgar Mahto and his son Mohan Mahto, appellants, against Ram Prasad Rai, defendant 1st set Respondent No. 1 and one Ram Dhani Sah, defendant 2nd set for declaration that judgment and decree dated 12-1-1978 passed in T.S. No. 33/77 was fraudulent, illegal and void and the defendant 1st set did not derive any right on the basis is of two deeds of agreement which were also fraudulent and collusive stating therein that defendants were friends. Defendant 2nd set Ram Dhani Sah was creditor of the appellants, some deferences cropped up between them leading to several civil and criminal cases. Ultimately the appellants had to execute certain sale-deed in favour of defendant 2nd set. At the time of execution of sale deed defendant 2nd set, who was a shrewd litigant, obtained his thumb impressions on several papers. The Appellant No. 1 also handed over some sale deeds, documents with respect to properties in the name of his father at the time of execution of the sale deeds to the defendant 2nd set. Defendant 1st set in collusion with the defendant 2nd set filed T.S. No. 33/77 against the appe