Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. (14th February 1934.) The plaintiffs are Indian Christians and they attacked in this suit the decree obtained against them in O.S. No. 243 of 1923 on the file of the Tuticorin Munsifs Court (same as O.S. No. 91 of 1924 on the file of the Srivikuntam Munsifs Court) by defendants 1 to 3. The decree is attacked on two grounds: First, that it was obtained by the fraud of defendants 1 to 4 and secondly, that there was gross negligence on the part of defendant 7, the plaintiffs mother. Although the relief claimed is a declaration that the decree in the former action is not binding, the suit may be treated as one brought to set aside that decree. There is also a prayer for an injunction to restrain defendants 1 to 4 from executing that decree.

2. The learned District Munsif rightly points out that several relevant documents have not been filed, and this has been responsible for a great deal of inconvenionce that has arisen. The facts, so far as I have been able to gather them, may be shortly stated. The suit property belonged to defendant 5 and he created a mortgage over it in 1903 in favour of a nidhi of which defendant 4 was the secretary. That mortgage was as