JUDGMENT R.S. Singh, J. - This is the plaintiff's second appeal against the decree and judgment dated 8-5-1964 of the Addl. Civil Judge, Deoria, affirming the decree of the trial court, by which the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. 2. The plaintiff-appellants filed a suit for cancellation of Civil Court decree dated 21-5-1957 passed by the IIIrd Addl. Munsif, Deoria in suit no. 4419 of 1956 Ramji Prasad and others v. Hanuman Prasad and others (hereinafter referred to as previous suit). This suit has been filed on the ground that the plaintiffs and the defendants are the bhumidhars and are in joint possession of the suit plots and the share of the plaintiffs is th. It has been alleged by the plaintiffs that defendants nos. 1 to 3 who were plaintiffs in the previous suit filed that suit against the plaintiffs of this suit as defendants and other defendants for partition of th share. An ex-parte decree was obtained against the present plaintiffs. Other defendants filed a compromise and on the basis of the compromise, the defendants nos. 1 to 3, who were plaintiffs, were declared bhumidhars of certain plots and other defendants were declared bhumidhars of other plots. But the present plaintiffs were given no share at all. According to the plaintiffs, in the previous suit, a decree was obtained fraudulently against the present plaintiffs. Hence the suit was filed for cancellation of the decree passed in the previous suit. 3. The suit was contested by the defendant, who were plaintiffs in the previous suit on the ground that there was a partition in the family in 1355F and in that partition, the plaintiffs were allotted share in other villages. The plots in suit did not fall in their share. Later on, in the partition suit also plaintiff did not get any share in the village in suit. They had knowledge of the previous suit and their application for setting aside ex-parte decree was also rejected, plea of res-judicata has also been raised. 4. The suit was dismissed by the Addl. Munsif, Deoria, plaintiffs preferred an appeal against the decree and judgment of the trial court, which was dismissed by the lower appellate court. 5. They had knowledge of the previous suit and their application for setting aside ex-parte decree was also rejected, plea of res-judicata has also been raised. 4. The suit was dismissed by the Addl. Munsif, Deoria, plaintiffs preferred an appeal against the decree and judgment of the trial court, which was dismissed by the lower appellate court. 5. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that this is clear from the allegations made in the previous suit that present plaintiffs had th share and they are in possession along with other tenure-holders as bhumidhars and it was claimed that the plaintiffs of that suit had th share. The present plaintiffs had not contested. The allegation made in the plaint about the share of the plaintiffs was admitted in the plaint, but the decree was passed on the basis of the compromise entered into between some of the parties to which the present plaintiffs were no party and on the basis of that compromise, these plaintiffs were given no share. In the face of it, the decree is fraudulent and against the relief claimed in the plaint. The application for setting-aside the ex-parte decree in the previous suit was rejected, but it has no effect in the present suit as this was misconceived proceeding and in any case, it has got no effect in the present case. The courts below have taken into consideration so many factors in deciding the suit, which are not relevant. 6. The important fact is that the plaintiff's share was admitted in the previous suit by the plaintiffs of that suit themselves. Therefore, the decree passed in that suit without giving any land to the plaintiffs, was certainly against relief claimed and on the face of it, a fraudulent one. In a case where the share and title of any party is correctly admitted in the plaint, which the other party also finds correct and does not come to a Court to make unnecessary contest, no decree can be passed by any court ignoring the share of the defendant, which is admitted in the plaint. If such a decree is obtained by the other party behind the back of the plaintiffs depriving their share, the decree will be on the face of it fraudulent. If such a decree is obtained by the other party behind the back of the plaintiffs depriving their share, the decree will be on the face of it fraudulent. Considering all the facts and the circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the decree and judgment dated 21-5-1957 passed by the IIIrd Addl. Munsif in the previous suit is liable to be set aside and after the decree is set-aside, that previous suit will stand revived. Therefore, the order of the courts below are liable to be set aside. 7. In the result, I allow this appeal, set aside the decrees of the courts below and decree the plaintiff's suit, with the result the decree dated 21-5-1957 passed by the IIIrd Addl. Munsif Deoria in Suit no. 4419 of 1956 in Ramji Prasad and others v. Hanuman Prasad and others is cancelled and the Suit no. 4419 of 1956 will stand revived. No orders as to the costs.