Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
A.M. Khanwilkar and Ajay Rastogi

JUDGMENT

Ajay Rastogi, J.

1. The question arises in the appeal for our consideration is as to whether the decree passed on a compromise can be challenged by the stranger to the proceedings in a separate suit.

2. The seminal facts which are relevant for the present purpose and the circumstances in which it arises for our consideration are that the Appellant-Plaintiff filed suit before 4^th sub-judge, Chapra seeking a declaration that the compromise decree dated 15^th September, 1994 passed in Second Appeal No. 495/86 by the High Court is illegal, inoperative and obtained by fraud and misrepresentation and also prayed for injunction against the Respondents-Defendants restraining them from entering into peaceful possession of the suit property.

3. The case in shorn of the Appellant-Plaintiff is that the land described in Schedule 1 of the plaint originally belonged to Lakhan Singh who died leaving behind three sons, namely, Din Dayal Singh, Jalim Singh and Kunjan Singh. Din Dayal Singh is said to have died issueless during lifetime of his father and his other brother, namely, Jalim Singh also died leaving behind a son Ram Nath Singh and two daughters Sampatiya and Soniya. As regards the third son Kunjan Singh, he is said to have died issueless but prior to his death he gifted the land of his share to Sampatiya on the basis of a gift deed dated 10^th July, 1978 which came on possession over her.

4. The further case of the Appellant is that one Salehari wife of Satyanarayan Prasad claiming herself to be the daughter of late Kunjan Singh filed a partition suit 13/78 in the Court of Munsif, Chapra for setting aside the aforesaid gift and for partition of her share in the ancestral property. In that suit, Sampatiya, Dulari Devi, Ram Nath and Soniya were impleaded as party Respondents-Defendants. Ram Nath died during pendency of the proceedings and only Sampatiya contested the suit. It was further stated that suit was dismissed and it was held that Salehari was not the daughter of Kunjan Singh and have no right in the properties.

5. Salehari filed T.A. No. 19/84 which was dismissed on 7^th April, 1986. The further case is that a total of 3 Bigha 6 Katha 3 Dhurs was sold by Sampatiya to Appellant-Plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- by a registered sale deed dated 6^th January, 1984 and put the Appellant-Plaintiff in possession over the suit property. In July, 1995, when Respondents-Defendants started making interference in possession of the suit property of the Appellant-Plaintiff and on query it revealed that it was claimed on the strength of a compromise decree entered between Sampatiya and Salehari which was filed in second appeal before the High Court of Patna.

6. The case of the Appellant-Plaintiff is that the said compromise decree was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation concealing the salient fact from the High Court that the sale deed was executed much prior to the compromise being executed between the parties to the proceedings and as such the said compromise was liable to be declared to be void which was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation.

7. The Respondents-Defendants contested the suit on the ground that the suit was not maintainable. It was also alleged that the suit was hit by the provisions of Section