Thomas, J.

The focus of appellant's attack in the suit is on a previous decree which 1st respondent has obtained from this court. According to the plaintiff, the said decree is void as it was based on an illegal compromise made between the parties in that case. Appellant prayed for a perpetual injunction to restrain the said decree holders from proceeding against the suit property in execution thereof. But plaintiff lost the case in the two courts below. Hence this second appeal by him.

2. The background of the present suit is the following: The suit property and some other properties belonged to one Nanu (who was the brother of first respondent's husband), Nanu sold those properties to different persons. Suit property was sold to one Mohammed Haneefa from whom the plaintiff purchased it on 25-7-1964 as per Ext. Al sale deed But prior to the said sale a suit was filed by the first respondent as O.S. No. 12/63 against Nanu for a decree in a sum of Rs. 79,000/- on the allegation that Nanu had borrowed the said sum from 1st respondent's husband. After filing the suit, properties of Nanu were attached before judgment in that case. Nanu contested the suit vehemently and the su