1. We think that we ought to follow the decisions of this Court in Rangammal v. Venkatachari 18 M. 378 and Kondeti Kama Raw v. Nukamma 31 M. 485 : 4 M.L.T. 331 : 18 M.L.J. 576 which lay down that a decree of Court, though obtained by collusion in order to carry out a scheme of fraud cannot be treated as nullity as between the parties to the decree-not only this, the Court ought not to permit any of the parties to such fraud and collusion to show that the transaction upheld by the decree was not really what it purported to be and does not, therefore, bind hinu We are not prepared to follow some of the observations in the judgment in Barkat-un-nissa v. Fazl Haq 26 A. 272 : A.W.N. (1904) 25 which go to the length of stating that a person, who had merely a hope of succession and no present legal right in the property affected by a collusive decree, is entitled to impeach that decree though he is the heir and representative of one of the parties to the decree. (See also Bigelow on Fraud, page 91.)

2. The decree in Original Suit No. 71 of 1002 awarding the plaintiff possession of the plaint property is, therefore, binding on the 3rd defendant, who is the heir of one of the parties