K.J. SENGUPTA, J.

(1) I have gone through the draft judgment of my learned brother. I agree with the conclu Lordship. However, I wish to add words to the same. This appeal was originally preferred the appellant above named, against the judgment and decree dated 14th June, 1995 passed District Judge, 2nd Court, contai. By the decree impugned the suit filed by the original app Original appellant filed this suit for declaration that she had title in respect of (ka) schedule the deed of family settlement and the defendant No. 1 has no title in respect of the same judgment and decree passed on 10th April, 1972 and 20th April, 1972 respectively in Title Court of Munsif at Contai filed by the plaintiffs husband late Kalipada Bakshi against the fraudulent, purposive, illegal and vitiated by fraud and the same is not binding on the plaint decree for cancellation of the same.

(2) THE sum and substance of the case made out in the plaint is stated herein : the plaintiffs Bakshi was a renowned local Lawyer and acquired considerable wealth which includes large contai during his lifetime. The said Kalipada Bakshi in order to distribute and settle his prope and sons by and under a registered deed of family settlement dated 21st September, 1956 other his dewlling house in mouza Hatabari within the town of Contai along with other proper the defendants. The description of the said properties given to them are mentioned in (ka) According to the plaintiff since the date of registration of the said family settlement the plaintiff the instant suit have been enjoying and possessing the same. The said family settlement respects by incorporating names of the persons in the settlement record under the appropriate Similarly in the municipal records the said family settlement was placed for taking follow-up the names of the persons who are beneficiaries were mutated in the municipal records. In were also mortgaged for obtaining loan from the Co-operative Bank, Contai Branch. After when the original deed of settlement was sought to be taken back the plaintiff came to know t taken back earlier by the first defendant and kept in his custody. The plaintiff has been re tenants of the dwelling house situated in the town of Contai acquired by the deed of family plaintiff wanted to execute a registered deed of family settlement in respect of the bastu defendant by a verbal settlement and called the defendant for sitting on 12th December, 199 came to know from the first defendant that she had no right to make settlement of the property by the first defendant that it was declared and held by the Court long ago that the said settlement was acted upon and as such it was cancelled in a suit filed by the plaintiffs husband and thereafter the said Kalipada gifted the properties to the first defendant. The said decree December, 1991 ex-parte in the Title Suit No. 124/1971 filed by the late husband of the plaintiff the plaintiff and other persons who are beneficiaries of the family settlement which include herein. Thereafter, the plaintiff duly obtained the certified copy of the judgment and decree of as the copy of the plaint on or about 21st December, 1991. She came to know for the first time collusive suit making her party to the said suit. It is alleged that the plaintiff was not informed a writ of summons of the said suit was not served on her. The said Kalipada since deceased local Court in collusion with the first defendant who was and still is an Advocate of the same peon under their control and caused him to write a false report to the effect that the writ of su was served. Thereafter ex-parte decree was obtained by suppressing the fact that the said de was acted upon. Thus the Court passed ex-parte judgment and decree on 10th April, 1972 an further alleged that upon misrepresentation being made and fraud being practised the plaintiff managed to keep the entire proceedings of the said suit secret, so much so the plaintiff re same, and had an ex-parte d