Kuldip Chand Sood, J.—The plaintiffs have filed this suit for declaration that the judgment and decree passed by this Court on September 24, 1993 in Regular Second Appeal No. 175 of 1989, Parkash Chand and others v. Hans Raj and others, having been obtained by fraud and mis-representation, is illegal, null and void and, therefore, not binding on the plaintiffs with a consequential relief of injunction restraining the defendants No. 1 to 5 from implementing or derieving any benefit arising out of the impugned judgment and decree of this Court, noticed above.

2. The suit, from which R.S.A. No. 175 of 1989 arose, was filed before the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Kullu in October, 1977. In this suit, plaintiffs prayed for possession of the premises fully described in para 1 of the plaint. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Shri Ram Dass Goel, predecessor-in-interest of defendants No. 1 to 5 and uncle of the plaintiffs, was posted as Teacher in the Government Middle School, Bhuntar. He approached the plaintiffs to allow him and his family members to occupy, temporarily, part of the premises in dispute as he did not have any accommodation to live at Bhuntar. Plaintiffs, out of respect and compassion for Shri Ram Dass, allowed him to use two rooms and two verandahs with attic in the upper storey as licensee. However, no licence fee was charged because of the close relationship. In the year 1955-56, Shri Ram Dass Goel again asked for permission to use and occupy the premises in the ground floor. Permission was granted again, on compassion as mother of defendants No. 1 to 5 was to deliver child. Shri Ram Dass Goel died in 1972 and after his death, defendants No. 1 to 5 approached the plaintiffs to permit them to use and occupy the premises for some time more. The request was allowed with the stipulation that licence is revokable and can be cancelled at any time. No licence fee was charged from the defendants for the use and occupation of the disputed premises.

3. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that defendants in the year 1977 dismantled certain wooden planks partition between the room and verandah. The defendants were asked to explain the high-handedness. The defendants, on such explanation being asked, threatened that they would not vacate the premises and plaintiffs be at liberty to do whatever they could. Plaintiffs issued notice to the defendants but defendants started making extensive alterations in the premises in dispute. The licence of the defendants was revoked on October 10, 1977 but the defendants did not vacate the premises. The defendants also tried to change the user of the premises from residential to commercial.

4. Plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for possession of the property in dispute and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from making any alterations etc., and from alienating the suit property in any manner. The plaintiffs also claimed damages for the use and occupation of the premises at the rate of rupees 300 per month. This suit (Civil Suit No. 63 of 1977) was decreed by learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Kullu vide his judgment dated March 5, 1985. Defendants appeal before the District Judge (Civil Appeal No. 126/86-139 of 2988) was dismissed and the cross-objections of the plaintiff allowed. The plaintiffs were held to be to future mesne profits at the rate of rupees per month from October 24, 1977 onwards. The defendants filed second appeal before this Court (RSA No. 175 of 1989). This second appeal was allowed and suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs filed Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court which too was dismissed. A review petition of the plaintiffs did not find favour.

5. This Court, in its decree held that the parties were co-sharers and the defendants No. 1 to 5 are entitled to l/3rd share in the property and suit for recovery of possession was not maintainable.

6. The present suit has been filed on the ground that important