The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity and enforceability of a compromise deed and affidavit, as well as the application of Order 23, Rule 3-A of the Civil Procedure Code.

JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J —The instant appeal is directed, against, the concurrently recorded verdicts by both the learned Courts below, whereby, the plaintiff''s suit for rendition, of, a decree for declaration, was, hence dismissed.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Padmawati, predecessor-in-interest of the appellant filed a suit against the defendants before the learned trial Court seeking declaration to the effect that the affidavit of 11.10.1990 and compromise deed without date, as filed in RSA No.131/90, decided on 6.11.1990 by the High Court are the result of fraud, deception, undue influence and misrepresentation and therefore, the decree dated 6.11.1990 passed by the High Court is nullity and not executable and enforceable in the eyes of law and the decree passed by the lower Courts are still binding upon the parties. The case set up by the plaintiff was that she and her daughter Narbada Devi filed a suit against defendants No.1 to 3 in the Court of learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Court no.1, Mandi, challenging the Will dated 27.2.1990 alleged to have been executed by her husband Dhari in favour of defendants No.1 to 3, on the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence etc, which was decreed on 16.9.1986 and the 1st appeal before the learned Addl. District Judge, Mandi was dismissed on 11.1.1990. Defendant No.1 to 3 dis-satisfied with the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court and the 1st Appellate Court, filed second appeal before the High Court of H.P. in terms of RSA No.131 of 1990. During the pendency of the appeal, defendant Prem Chand, who is closely related to Padmawati plaintiff represented to her that he would withdraw the appeal before the High Court and for that purpose affidavits of Padmawati and of the defendants were required for which purpose defendant No.1 brought the plaintiff to Mandi and got her thumb impression on a typed paper without explaining the contents to her. Smt. Padmawati affixed her thumb impression believing the representation of defendant No.1 to be correct. Defendant No.1 also got the thumb impression of Padmawati affixed on another typed paper which as per information received as the alleged compromise filed in RSA No.131 of 1990 in the High Court of H.P. Defendant No.1 on the basis of said compromise got the decree of the lower Appellate Court modified and reversed. Defendant No.1 never informed the plaintiff about the execution of the alleged compromise deed nor the plaintiff was consenting party to such deed as she has already won the case in the lower courts and there was no necessity for her to arrive at such a compromise and this compromise is the result of fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence. The plaintiff never sent any instruction to her counsel to compromise the appeal. Defendant No.4 Fagnu Ram, who is the son of the plaintiff from her previous husband prosecuted the suit in the trial Court and defended appeals in both Courts by engaging counsel. Defendant No.4 was bribed by defendant No.2, who misrepresented to Sh. B.K. Malhotra, Advocate about the genuineness of the compromise and thus the decree passed by the Hon''ble High Court in R.S.A. No. 131/90 of 6.11.1990 is a nullity. The total land in that suit was measuring 34 bighas and the plaintiff had already won the case in the lower courts and there was no reason for the plaintiff to compromise the case only for about 3 bighas of land.

3. The defendants contested the suit and filed separate written statements. Defendants No.1 to 3, in their written statement have taken preliminary objections inter alia maintainability, estoppel, jurisdiction and valuation. It has been stated that the suit is barred under Order 23, Rule 3-A of the CPC. It has been averred that the plaintiff had come to Mandi with the help of her son and she executed compromise deed with her own free will after admitting it to be correct. Even before the High Court of H.P., where the plaintiff was duly represented