PRATAP MISTRY Vs. SITARAM MISTRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties.

(2.) BOTH these civil revision applications arise out of the same order dated 22 -9 -2000 passed by the Munsif -III, Gaya in Title Suit No. 16 of 1999 wherein part of the aforesaid order has been impugned by the plaintiff in C.R. No. 2362 of 2000 to the extent the suit to be not maintainable as for the relief No. III, namely, declaration that the compromise decree passed in Title Suit No. 63 of 1963 is forged, fabricated and collusive. In the second civil revision application (C.R. No. 177 of 2001) the defendants first set has assailed the same order to the extent of holding the suit to be maintainable as with regard to relief Nos. I and II.

(3.) FROM a bare perusal of the averments made in the plaint it would thus be clear that while the plaintiffs had sought declaration of their right, title and possession over the suit land, in fact, for grant of such relief the compromise decree of Title Suit No. 63 of 1963 was also sought to be assailed.