JUDGMENT

Agha Haidar, J. - The plaintiffs brought the present suit for a declaration that the decree dated 24th March 1897, was null and void as against them as it was obtained by fraud, active concealment of facts, suppression of evidence and production of perjured evidence, and that the plaintiffs were the legitimate sons of one Ghulam Mohy-ud-din and, as such, were entitled to the property in suit.

2. The facts leading up to the present litigation are somewhat prolix and the history of the case takes us back to the early 80's. For the purpose of understanding the case the following pedigree, which is admitted by the parties to be correct, may be subjoined here:

(For pedigree, please see p. 570)

3. Ghulam Mohy-ud-din alias Gaman had a wife called Mt. Sahib Nur 1, with whom we are not concerned. There was another lady also named Mt. Sahib Nur 2 who was at one time undoubtedly the wife of one Qamar-ud-din. On 19th June 1881, Qamar-ud-Din prosecuted Gaman under Section 498, I.P.C., for having enticed away his wife, Mt. Sahib Nur 2. This complaint was dismissed and Qamar-ud-din was directed by the criminal Courts to bring a suit for the custody of his wife, Mt. Sahib Nur, if he was so ad