Anand Pathak, J.—Appellants/plaintiffs have preferred this appeal under Section 100 of CPC challenging the judgment and decree of reversal dated 12th May, 2004 passed by Third Additional District Judge, Vidisha in Civil Appeal No. 60-A/2003; whereby, the judgment and decree dated 15/9/2003 passed by First Civil Judge, Class-II, Vidisha in Civil Suit No. 175-A/2003 has been set aside.

2. Plaintiffs have preferred a suit for declaration, possession, partition and permanent injunction in respect of suit property and for setting aside of judgment and decree dated 9/10/1965 passed in Civil Suit No. 116-A/1965. The genealogy tree of the plaintiffs is demonstrated as under:-

According to plaintiffs, plaintiff No 3-Khumanobai is wife of Kishori and plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 Chironjibai and Smt. Amnibai are daughters of Kishori and Khumanobai.

3. Plaintiffs have filed a suit while pleading that the defendant Bhaiyalal has obtained a decree dated 9/10/1965 from Civil Judge, Class-II, Vidisha by playing fraud to the Court, therefore, the proceedings including judgment and decree, undertaken before the trial Court in Civil Suit No. 116-A/1965 are liable to be set aside alongwith other reliefs.

4. The defendants filed the written statement and contested the claims made by the plaintiffs. According to respondents/defendants, plaintiff No. 3 Smt. Khumano Bai was a party to the decree passed in year 1965 and according to defendants, plaintiffs had the knowledge of the fact about the passing of decree in past. Defendants have pleaded that the plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 were minors at the time of execution of decree in year 1965 because they were parties in litigation of year 1965. Details of plaintiff Amni Bai has not been disclosed in specific terms regarding her majority status, therefore she had to be treated as major. Similarly, plaintiff Chironjibi has already admitted to be an adult in plaint itself. Therefore, question of status regarding minority is to be dealt with in respect of Amni Bai only. Defendants have prayed for dismissal of the suit on the ground of limitation as well as on the point of adverse possession and further pleaded that in earlier suit of year 1965, judgment and decree passed was a consent decree, wherein, the present plaintiffs Khumanobai, Amnibai and Chironjibai have specifically given the consent and on their consent, a consent decree had been passed. After that, mutation had taken place in year 1966. Therefore, relief as sought cannot be given to plaintiffs.

5. Trial Court had framed as many as 17 issues. After the issues were framed, evidence was led by the parties and after appreciation of evidence, trial Court decreed the suit in favour of plaintiffs on the basis of Article 59 of the Limitation Act treating the suit to be in limitation from the date of knowledge of passing of consent decree in year 1965. The suit was filed on 29/9/1982 and cause of action has been explained in the suit when the plaintiffs came to know about the passing of judgment and decree dated 9/10/1965, in the year 1982 just before filing of the suit. Trial Court not only decreed the suit but awarded mesne profits and decree for restoration of possession of plaintiffs.

6. Being aggrieved, the respondent No. 1/defendant has filed first appeal under Section 96 of the CPC before the first appellate Court and tried to resort to Article 60 of the Limitation Act for setting aside of the decree.

7. Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the suit on the ground of Section 6 and 8 of the Limitation Act. According to appellate Court, the defendant Bhaiyalal has not obtained the judgment and decree on the basis of any misrepresentation and came to the conclusion that the proceedings have not been initiated within stipulated period of three years, therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court has been set aside.

8. After passing of the judgment and decree by the first appellate court,