Mr. M. Jeyapaul, J.:- The unsuccessful defendants who suffered a decree for declaration and permanent injunction at the hands of both the Courts below have preferred the present second appeal.

2. The plaintiff has contended in the plaint that he was owner in possession of the agricultural land described in the plaint. The defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit property. The defendants filed a Suit No.653 against the plaintiff with a view to grab the suit land from the plaintiff. On 20.9.1994, the defendants made illegal and unauthorized compromise playing fraud upon him and obtained 6 kanals 8 marlas of land comprised in Rect.No.31 killa No.12 and in lieu thereof defendants had given 1 kanal 12 marlas of land comprised in Rect.No.33 killa No.14. The plaintiff has suffered a loss in respect of land measuring 4 kanals 16 marlas. The plaintiff was an illiterate person. He had no knowledge of the terms and conditions of the compromise. The same was never read over and explained to him. The defendants obtained the signatures/thumb marks of the plaintiff on blank papers with an assurance that he would be given equivalent land to that of defendants. In this manner, the defendants had obtained a decree dated 20.9.1994 by playing fraud upon the plaintiff. The defendants also had got entered mutation No.1343 on the basis of the aforesaid decree. Alleging that the defendants in the guise of the impugned decree and the mutation entered in their names threatened alienation of alienate the suit land, the suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

3. The defendants contended in the written statement that only in terms of the compromise arrived at between the plaintiff and the defendants, a judgement/decree dated 29.9.1994 was passed and thereby the defendants were declared as owners in possession of the land measuring 6 kanals 8 marlas towards Western side of Rectangle No.31 Killa No.12, whereas the plaintiff was declared owner of land measuring 1 kanal 12 marlas towards Eastern side of Rectangle No.31 Killa No.12. It was also agreed by the plaintiff that after passing of the decree dated 29.9.1994, the defendants would give him land measuring 1 kanals 12 marlas out of their land comprised in killa No.33/14 and in this manner the entire suit land comprised in killa No.31/12 would fall under the ownership and possession of defendants. As the comprise was duly signed by the parties, the plaintiff has no right to back out from the terms and conditions of the said compromise. No fraud was played upon the plaintiff by the defendants. Contending that the plaintiff was not entitled to get any relief in the suit, the defendants had sought for dismissal of the suit.

4. Both the Courts below having assessed the evidence on record returned a finding that a fraudulent decree was obtained by the defendants as against the plaintiff. Even a compromise decree obtained by fraud could be challenged by way of filing a separate suit, it was held. Ultimately, the trial Court granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff and the same was confirmed by the first appellate Court. At the time of admission of appeal, the following question of law was formulated by this Court:-

“Whether the statement recorded in Court can be said to be rebutted by statement of the plaintiff alone.”

5. On 22.10.1992, an earlier suit was filed by the defendants herein seeking a relief of declaration that they were owners in possession of the suit property and also for permanent injunction as against the plaintiff herein. Ex.CI compromise deed was filed before the trial Court which tried the suit earlier filed by the defendants herein. As per the aforesaid compromise deed marked as Ex.C1 in the earlier suit, the defendants herein would be owner in possession of 6 kanal 8 marlas of land on the Western side of the disputed land in Rect. No.31 killa No.12 and the plaintiff herein would be the owner in possession of 1 kanal 12 marla on the East