JUDGMENT

Daniels, J. - The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiffs to set aside as not binding on them a compromise in a previous suit, dated 12th January 1920, entered into by their elder brother Sita Ram as their guardian ad litem. The plaintiffs and their elder brother Sita Ram ere the sons of one Ram Sunder. There had been a partition between Ram Sunder and his brother Nokh Lal, the answering defendant in the present case. Subsequently, Nokh Lal brought a suit against the plaintiffs and their elder brother alleging that the partition was vitiated by fraud and that the sons of Ram Sunder had, in consequence, obtained possession of more than their proper share. This suit was ultimately compromised Sita Ram entering into the compromise on his own behalf and also as guardian ad litem of his minor brothers, the plaintiffs. The only ground on which the plaintiffs in their plaint sought to set aside the compromise is contained in paragraph 3 of the plaint in which they allage:

Defendant No. I (i.e., Nokh Lal), having practised deception upon the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 2 (i.e., Sita Ram) and having colluded with him filed a regular suit in this Court