VINEY MITTAL, J. - (1.) The plaintiff has lost before the learned first Appellate Court and has approached this Court through the present Regular Second Appeal. She filed a suit for declaration to the effect that she is owner in possession of the land measuring 36 kanals 7 marlas and that the judgment and decree dated March 26, 1985 shown to have been suffered by her in favour of the defendants was illegal, bad, as a result of fraud and not binding upon her rights.
(2.) The plaintiff claimed that defendants are the sons of the real brother of the husband of the plaintiff. On the asking of the defendants, the plaintiff went along with them for getting the mutation of land in her name. However, the defendants obtained the said decree by practising fraud upon her and by obtaining her signatures on blank papers.
(3.) The suit was contested by the defendants. They claimed that the decree in question was legal and validly suffered by the plaintiff in their favour, as a result of family settlement. A plea of limitation was also taken by the defendants.;