This is an appeal on behalf of the defendants 1 and 3 against the decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, L. A. D., in a Title Suit brought by the plaintiff for a declaration that a deed of gift executed by the plaintiff's father on 15-12-1928 in favour of defendant 2 was not operative against the plaintiff and that the defendants 1, 2 and 3 had not acquired any right, title or interest in the land covered by the said deed of gift which was the sub­ject-matter of the present suit and for a further de­claration that the compromise decree dated 16-6-1930 and the ex parte decree obtained against the plaintiff on 21-7-1936 by the defendant 1 were both fraudulent and inoperative, and the plaintiff asked for confirmation and restitution of possession with regard to the property in suit.

(2) The plaintiff's case was that Homeswar, his father, died in 1931 leaving his widow and the plain­tiff, his only son, who was then a child of three years of age. It is alleged that Homeswar was a man of weak mind and was addicted to Ganja and defendant 2 Jadab Chandra Rai taking advantage of this evil habit of Homeswar became closely asso­ciated with him and engaged him as a cook for some time in an hotel at Nalbari.

Jadab took Homeswar completely under his con-and by some false inducements succeeded in getting a power of attorney executed in his behalf by Homeswar for the management of his entire valuable landed property and he oven authorised Jadab to transfer the same, which deed of attorney, however, was subsequently cancelled at the instance of the plaintiff's mother. Even after that the intimacy between Jadab and Homeswar continued dur­ing which Jadab constantly encouraged Homeswar's ganja habit and fraudulently or by some false in­ducements or misrepresentation and by undue influence got a deed of gift executed by Homeswar in his favour on 15-12-1928 in respect of half of the land that Homeswar owned and possessed.

The plaintiff's mother being aware of the deed prevailed upon her husband Homeswar to institute a suit for cancellation of the said deed of gift and the suit was accordingly instituted it being Suit No. 1254/1929 of the Court of the Sadar Munsif, at Gauhati. The suit was fixed for hearing on 20-6-1930, but Jadab somehow got an application filed by Homeswar four days ahead of the date fixed i.e. on 16-6-1930 whereby the suit was allowed to be dismissed without cost.

Homeswar died in 1931, after which Chandi Oharan Das, defendant 1, in collusion with Jadab defendant 2 filed a money suit and obtained a de­cree and in execution of the said decree defendant 1 purported to purchase the land in suit himself. The defendant 1 thereupon applied for mutation which was resisted by the plaintiff's mother and his appli­cation for mutation was rejected.

Thereupon defendant 1 instituted a declaratory suit in respect of the major portion of the land in suit which "was suit No. 309 of 1936 in the Court if the Sadar Munsif, Gauhati. and by suppressing summons he fraudulently obtained an ex parte decree on 21-7-1936 and although a guardian ad item was purported to be appointed on behalf of the present plaintiff, who was then minor, the guar­dian did not contact either the minor or the natural guardian and no steps were taken on behalf of the present defendant and the suit proceeded ex parte.

Defendant 3 Mofizur Rohman then came into the picture and claimed to have purchased the land in suit from defendant 1 but since defendants 1 and 2 had no saleable interest in the land, defendant 3 acquired no title to the property purchased even if the sale be genuine. The plaintiff alleges that this transaction was also colourable and the defendant 3 a neighbour of the plaintiff knew all about the inci­dents of this land.

It was further alleged that the land shown in the Ka Schedule was given as usufructuary mort­gage for Rs. 250/- by Homeswar, father of the plaintiff, to the father of defendants 4, 5 and 6 and as the same defendants have been posses