V.K.JHANJI,J - (1.) THIS second appeal is by defendants No. 2 to 4 against the judgment and decrees of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for declaration that judgment and decree dated 30.3.1995 passed in Civil Suit No. 178 of 1995 and judgment and decree dated 31.7.1995 passed in Civil Suit No. 683 of 1995 are illegal and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff.
(2.) BOTH the Courts below, on appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties to the suit, have recorded a firm finding of fact that the plaintiff is a Parda Nashin lady and she was kept ignorant about proceedings which ended in decree suffered by her in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2. Consequently, it has been held that the decree is not binding on her. As a result thereof decree suffered by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendants No. 3 and 4 has also been held to be illegal. In this second appeal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendants No. 2 to 4 has contended that the decree suffered by the plaintiff in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 was on her own volition and decree suffered by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendants No. 3 and 4 in regard to suit land thus cannot be said to be illegal.
(3.) I , however, do not find any merit in this contention of learned counsel for defendants No. 2 to 4.;