JUDGMENT :

J.J. Munir, J.

1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising from a suit seeking to declare a decree passed in an earlier suit inter partes void and for recovery of possession.

2. Original Suit No. 378 of 1993 was instituted by Smt. Ramwati against Smt. Shakuntala and her two minor sons Harbansh and Harchand, represented by Smt. Shakuntala, their mother and guardian ad litem, before the Civil Judge of Bijnor [now Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)] on 11.5.1993 for declaration and possession in the terms set out hereinafter. Smt. Ramwati shall hereinafter be referred to as ''the plaintiff'' whereas Smt. Shakuntala and her two sons Harbansh and Harchand, who were arrayed as defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to the suit and are respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to this appeal, shall be collectively referred to as ''the defendants.'' In the event of an individual reference, the defendant shall be called by his/her name.

3. It is the plaintiff's case that her father, the late Bhikki Singh was owner in possession of properties set out in Schedules A, B and C to the plaint. The plaintiff's father passed away on 13.1.1983. The plaintiff is Bhikki Singh's lone child and the sole heir entitled to inherit his estate. Bhikki Singh had married once in his lifetime and his wife was Smt. KhajaNo. Smt. Khajano passed away during the lifetime of Bhikki Singh. Smt. Shakuntala, defendant No. 1 to the suit, never married Bhikki Singh. She was married to one Shyamlal, whom she deserted, and thereafter, stayed with a number of men. For a period of about 2-3 years past, she had been staying with the late Bhikki Singh. Smt. Shakuntala had brought alongwith her to Bhikki Singh's home, her sons Harbansh and Harchand. The plaintiff stays with her husband at Ghaziabad. Though not specifically said, it seems that Bhikki Singh would stay at Village Nawabpura, Pargana and Tehsil Najibabad, District Bijnor.

4. It is the plaintiff's case that after her father's death, she came over to her parental home and asked the defendants to vacate her father's house. The defendants refused. Thereupon, the plaintiff instituted Suit No. 162 of 1985, Ramwati vs. Shakuntala and Others, which appears to be a suit for possession after terminating the defendants' licence. The suit last mentioned was brought by the plaintiff against the defendants to establish her claim and recover possession of the property indicated in Schedule A, B and C to the plaint giving rise to the present suit. The defendants had got their names recorded over the agricultural land, part of the suit property.

5. The plaintiff was prosecuting Original Suit No. 162 of 1985 through Mr. Gulzar Husain, Advocate. Pending the suit, Smt. Shakuntala proposed an amicable settlement in terms that Smt. Shakuntala would acknowledge the plaintiff's right to the property mentioned in Schedules A, B and C to the plaint giving rise to the present suit and file a compromise to the above effect. The plaintiff is an illiterate woman hailing from a rural background. Taking it to be a document, where the defendants had acknowledged her right to the suit property, she appended her mark of thumb to the terms of compromise proposed to be filed in Suit No. 162 of 1985. Thereupon, Smt. Shankutala, defendant No. 1 and her pairokar, one Harswaroop engaged a new Counsel on her behalf, who filed the aforesaid compromise, thumb marked by her, on 4.1.1992, practising fraud upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff learnt it by rumour on 4.1.1992 (which appears to be a mistaken mention for the date 4.2.1992' on account of a clerical error in the plaint) about the decree secured fraudulently by the defendants in Suit No. 162 of 1985. Thereupon, on 5.3.1992, the plaintiff applied for a copy of the decree. She was issued with a certified copy on 22.3.1992. After obtaining necessary legal assistance, the plaintiff instituted the present suit seeking to declare the decree void in Suit No. 162 of 1985 on the ground that it was obtained by fraud and consequential relief of poss