Hemant Gupta, J.

1. The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court whereby suit challenging the decree dated 20.7.1979 in favour of the defendant Nos.l and 2 suffered by their mother Smt. Ram Kaur was dismissed.

2. Smt. Ram Kaur was owner of agricultural land measuring 26 kanals 7 marlas situated in village Bhagwai. Her two sons namely Chattar Singh and Lal Singh filed a suit claiming ownership of the said property against Smt. Ram Kaur. Smt. Ram Kaur suffered consent decree in favour of her said two sons on 20.7.1979. It is the said decree which is being disputed by another son of Smt. Ram Kaur in the present suit.

3. The decree is sought to be avoided on the ground that the decree is collusive, illegal and that no family settlement on the basis of which decree has been passed has been produced on record. The learned trial Court decreed the suit holding that the decree is collusive and that the defendants have failed to prove family settlement. However, in appeal the Appellate Court reversed such finding holding that the decree passed on the basis of consent is as much binding on the parties as the one obtain