The main legal point established in the judgment is that a separate suit for setting aside a compromise decree on the ground that the compromise was not lawful is not maintainable, and the appropriate course of action is to treat the plaint as an application for setting aside the judgment and decree passed in the earlier suit by way of compromise and proceed as per law.

( 1 ) IN this appeal preferred under section 96 of the Code of Civil procedure the defendants-appellants have called in question the defensibility of the judgment and decree passed by learned IInd additional District Judge, Betul in Civil Suit no. 3-A/1996.

( 2 ) THE facts which are essential to be stated are that Civil Suit No. 4-A/1986 was instituted by the defendants appellants (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellants') for declaration of right, title and interest in respect of the land situated at Khasra No. 336 admeasuring 1. 197 hectare before the first Additional District Judge, Betul. The court on the basis of compromise application dated 6-10-1990 as contained in Ex. P-6 filed by the parties passed the judgment and decree dated 30-10-1990 as per Ex. P-5. As per the compromise, Ex. P-6, land bearing Khasra No. 955 admeasuring 4. 56 acres at village Tikari was to be transferred in favour of Brajesh Kumar, appellant No. 1 in exchange of land bearing Khasra Nos. 335 and 336 and on the basis of the judgment and the decree exchange deed dated 7-10- 1994 was executed in favour of the appellant No. 1.

( 3 ) THE State of M. P. and its functionaries instituted the present suit contending, inter alia, that in the earlier suit it was pleaded by the plaintiffs that Forest Department therein had unauthorisedly removed the trees from Khasra No. 336 belonging to brajesh Kumar and hence, defendants should pay damages to the tune of Rs. 40,000/-, It was also pleaded that he should be declared as the owner of Khasra No. 336. Various documents were produced before the Court for grant of reliefs prayed. It was pleaded by the State of Madhya Pradesh and its functionaries that Narendra Kumar, the defendant No. 3 in the present suit who was defending the civil suit No. 4-A/86 was not duly appointed as Officer-in-charge and had no authority to enter into any compromise on behalf of the State Government or for that matter on behalf of the forest department. It was pleaded that such a compromise was violative of provisions of Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and M. P. Land Revenue Code. It was urged that the defendants obtained the decree in a fraudulent manner by concealing the material facts and, therefore, the decree and the judgment passed in civil suit no. 4-A/86 is ab initio void and consequentially the execution of the exchange deed is also null and void.

( 4 ) DEFENDANT No. 2, Shiv Shankar Shukla remained ex parte. Narendra Kumar, defendant No. 3 pleaded that he was not apprised that the land belonging to Khasra No. 955 is the forest land and he signed the compromise deed on being advised by the Government pleader. It is also submitted by him that he acted in a bona fide manner though he did not have the right to give the land of khasra No. 955 in exchange of any other land.

( 5 ) THE stand of the Defendant No. 1, brajesh Kumar in the written statement is that the compromise entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants in civil suit no. 4-A/86 is lawful and the judgment and the decree passed in the said suit is absolutely proper and in any case the same cannot be unsettled or dislodged in a suit of this nature. It has been put forth that the land given in exchange is not forest land and in fact it belongs to the State Government. The further stand of the said defendant is that the plaintiffs are precluded from disputing the compromise deed dated 30-10-1990 which had already been given effect to. Allegations relating to fraud had been disputed as baseless. As per the pleadings, the State Government has not challenged the aforesaid compromise decree and hence, it is estopped to assail the validity of the judgment and decree in a suit. The defendant is in possession of the disputed land bearing Kh. No. 955. Quite apart from the above, it has also been urged that the suit has not been properly valued and the Court has no jurisdiction to decide the lis in question.

( 6 ) LEARNED trial Judge framed number of issues an