1. This appeal is the last stage in a prolonged litigation. In the year 1913, the respondent, a widow whose husband had predeceased his father sued her father-in-law for maintenance. At the time of the suit, she was a minor and was represented in it by her father as her guardian. During the pendency of the suit, her father-in-law died and his surviving son now the appellant who had succeeded to his property, was brought on to the record in his place. In January 1914, her father, on her behalf entered into a compromise with the appellant. His vakil certified that the compromise was beneficial to the minor. The Subordinate Judge sanctioned the compromise and a decree was passed on it. The respondent reached her majority on 15th August 1915 and on 1st September filed a suit to set aside the compromise decree. Her father could not, of course, impeach he compromise himself but there is every reason to believe that it was he that set her up to impeach it. Her plaint makes it perfectly clear that she was attacking the decree on the only grounds on which she could attack it- that is, on the grounds of fraud and collusion. In para. 6 she averred that her father consented to the comp