JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The plaintiffs'' Suit bearing number 179-1 of 1988, seeking therethrough rendition, of a, declaratory decree, and, also rendition, of, a further decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers mentioned therein, and, against the defendants, become dismissed, by the learned Sub Judge, 1st Class, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P, (i) and, in an appeal reared thereagainst, by the aggrieved plaintiffs, before the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, the latter pronounced a verdict thereon wherethrough, he reversed the verdict pronounced earlier by the learned trial Court, upon, the afore Civil Suit, and, wherethrough, it, dismissed the plaintiffs'' suit. Defendants No.3 and 4, becoming aggrieved therefrom, institute thereagainst, hence RSA No. 209 of 2003, before this Court. 2. Also the afore plaintiffs, through, instituting Civil Suit number 19-1 of 1990, claimed therethrough, rendition of a decree of joint possession, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers mentioned therein, and, against, the defendants, and, thereon the learned Sub Judge, 1st Class, Ghumarwin, granted the espoused decree, to the plaintiffs, and, it also decreed qua them hence mesne profits computed, in, a sum of Rs.10,000/-, (a) yet, with a further direction becoming made upon them, vis-a-vis, theirs within 30 days paying Court fee(s), ad valorem vis-a-vis, the afore determined sum, of, mesne profits. The defendants becoming aggrieved therefrom, reared thereagainst hence Civil Appeal No. 49 of 1995, and, the afore Civil Appeal, became conjointly decided with Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1995, appeal whereof, became directed, by the plaintiffs against the verdict made, in, Civil Suit No. 19/1 of 1990, (a) and, through, a, common verdict becoming recorded, upon, the afore Civil Appeal(s) on 10.3.2003, by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, H.P, Civil Appeal No. 49 of 1995, as, instituted by the defendants became allowed, whereas, hence plaintiffs'' Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1995, became dismissed. The aggrieved therefrom, hence plaintiff(s), institute thereagainst hence RSA No.210 of 2003, before this Court. 3. When RSA No. 209 of 2003, came up, for, admission on 24.3.2005, this Court, admitted it, on, the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the learned District Judge, Bilaspur has recorded the findings beyond the scope of pleadings. 2. Whether the findings, as recorded by the learned District Judge are vitiated on account of misreading and mis-appreciation of the pleadings of the parties, as well as oral and documentary evidence on record. 3. Whether the learned District Judge, Bilaspur has recorded the findings beyond the scope of pleadings. 2. Whether the findings, as recorded by the learned District Judge are vitiated on account of misreading and mis-appreciation of the pleadings of the parties, as well as oral and documentary evidence on record. 3. Whether the inferences and conclusions as drawn by the learned District Judge are not only contrary to the factual position on record, but also contrary to the provisions of law. 4. Whether the respondents No.1 and 2 having failed to plead, as to how late Smt. Bhungi alias Bhagwan Dassi was 1/8th share in the suit land, therefore, suit could not be decreed. 5. Whether the evidence, as produced by the respondents No.1 and 2 is beyond the scope of pleadings. 6. Whether the presumption of truth as attached to the entries in the revenue record with respect to the suit land, which were incorporated on the basis of the decision passed by the Hon''ble High Court of H.P in RSA No. 119/83 and on the basis of the order, as passed by the learned Collector in Revenue Appeal No. 10/88 dated 27.2.1989 titled as Hari Singh etc. versus Tholi Singh etc. no fault can be found with the same and in the absence of rebuttal to these entries suit was required to be dismissed. 7. Whether in the RSA No. 119/83 present appellants, Hari Singh and Hardayal Singh and respondents Partap Singh and Balbir Singh all sons of late Gopal Singh have been held to get 1/5th share in the area measuring 37-19 bighas, therefore, upon the death of Gopal Singh, Smt. Bhungi would ot get 1/8th share in this land, especially in view of the fact that the deceased Gopal Singh and Bhungi as per material on record had four sons and three daughters. 8. Whether in the absence of any determination about the entitlement of defendant No.6 Tholi and defendant No.7 Todi, compromise Ex.PX and Ex.PY between the defendants No. 6,7 and plaintiffs are illegal and void and those are not binding upon the appellants." 4. When RSA No. 210 of 2003, came up, for admission on 24.3.2005, this Court, admitted it, on, the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- "1. Whether the findings as recorded by the ld. When RSA No. 210 of 2003, came up, for admission on 24.3.2005, this Court, admitted it, on, the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- "1. Whether the findings as recorded by the ld. District Judge, are vitiated on account of misreading, mis-appreciation and misinterpretation of the pleadings of the parties as well as oral and documentary evidence on record? 2. Whether the findings as recorded by the Ld. District Judge are beyond the scope of the pleadings of the parties as well as oral and documentary evidence on record? 3. Whether the inferences and conclusions as drawn by the Ld. District Judge are neither supported by material on record nor by provisions of law? 4. Whether there is no legal and valid will on behalf of late Smt. Bhungi in favour of respondents No. 5 and 6 S/ Sh. Duni Singh and Shamsher Singh and they have not been able to prove the will in question in accordance with law? 5. Whether the respective share of the plaintiffs, respondents No. 7 and 8 and also the respondents No. 5 and 6 has wrongly been determined 1/8 each and this conclusion by the Ld. District Judge is on account of misreading and mis-interpretation of the respective claims of the parties and evidence on record?" Substantial questions of law in both the appeals:- 5. Since both the RSAs, appertain, to, a similar khasra numbers, and, also when the core conundrum, embodied therein, and, engaging the contesting litigants, becomes rested, upon, the subsisting validity, of, the apposite compromise entered into, inter-se, the litigants, in, RSA No.119 of 1983, (a) and, also when, in, Civil Suit No. 179-1 of 1988, rather the validity of making, of, the afore compromise decree, becomes challenged hence by the plaintiffs therein, (b) given, their rights, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, becoming encumbered with, a, gross prejudice, or, also their apposite rights therein becoming rather untenably derogated, thereupon, both the RSAs are amenable for a common verdict being recorded thereon(s), (c) more conspicuously also with litigants, in, both the afore rather being similar. 6. 6. Initially the learned Counsel appearing, for, the appellants contends (a) that the compromise entered, into, amongst the contesting litigants in RSA No. 119 of 1983 rather assumes the completest validity, and, binding effect, (b) and, also all the echoings borne therein hence became binding, upon, the plaintiffs in Case No. 179-1 of 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "plaintiffs"), who, are the successors-in-interest, of, deceased Smt. Bhungi, on, anvil, of, a testamentary disposition, made by her, in their favour, (c) he further hinges, his, afore contention, upon, given, a Review Petition becoming filed by the plaintiffs rather subsequent, to a, compromise decree, becoming pronounced, upon, RSA No. 119 of 1983, (d) and, yet the afore Review Petition standing dismissed, hence he contends that, (e) on anvil, of, the mandate occurring in Order XXIII Rule 3A of Code of Civil Procedure, provisions whereof, stand extracted hereinafter, (f) wherethrough, the litigants'' in a lis, whereon, a compromise decree becomes pronounced, become rather barred, from, striving through instituting thereagainst, a suit, hence seek therein rather rendition of a declaratory decree, vis-a-vis, the recorded compromise decree, becoming declared, to be void, or, unlawful, (g) thereupon, the afore aspiration, of, the plaintiffs, renders attraction(s), thereon vis-a-vis, the mandate of Order XXIII Rule 3A of Code of Civil Procedure, (h) and, also hence the suit, becoming mis-constituted, and, besides warranting its dismissal. He also contends that their participation, in, the apposite lis, rather becomes displayed, through, theirs withdrawing, the, Review Petition, thereupon, his, afore argument, hence acquiring immense formability, and, legal force. "3.A Bar to suit-No suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful." 7. However, for the reasons, to be ascribed hereinafter, the afore submissions addressed, by the learned counsel for the appellants, arise, from his gross misunderstanding, vis-a-vis, the import, of, the afore alluded provisions, (i) in, as much, as, with the mandate borne therein, becoming attracted, only, vis-a-vis, the participating litigants, in, the apposite lis, whereas mandate thereof, not becoming encumbered, vis-a-vis, any litigant, who does not, participate, in, the earlier lis, whereon hence, a, compromise decree become pronounced. Furthermore, if the mandate of the afore provisions, if is, un-recoursable, by any non-litigant in the apposite lis, thereupon, when the lis terminates, upon, a compromise decree/verdict, becoming recorded thereupons, (i) hence even the purported participation therein(s), by the plaintiffs, through theirs instituting, a, Review Petition, after the termination, of, the apposite lis, and, though it became naturally validly dismissed, given, theirs holding no apt legally enforceable hence, on, any legal facet, the apt locus standi to constitute, it, rather obviously does not render them construable, to be either participants in the lis nor they become construable, to, rather derive any apt leverage, from, the mandate borne, in, Order XXIII Rule 3A of Code of Civil Procedure, nor, their suit becomes mis-constituted, (ii) Imperatively, when the afore lis became terminated, without, theirs becoming heard. Also more importantly, when, the grand mother of the plaintiffs, one Smt. Bhungi Devi, became ordered to be deleted, from, the array of litigants, in, the afore earlier lis, (i) as, her LRs were declared to be rather arrayed, on, record, through an order recorded, on, 27.10.1986, upon, RSA No. 119 of 1982, (ii) Yet, dehors any application, for, the afore purpose becoming instituted before this Court, rather merely, upon, a statement, made by the Counsel(s) concerned, vis-a-vis, the estate of the afore deceased Bhungi, who, rather executed, a, testamentary disposition, vis-a-vis, the plaintiffs, rather becoming represented, by their arrayed therein father, one Balbir Singh, (iii) and, who thereafter, through, his making a statement, before this Court, rather ensured rendition, of, a compromise decree, hence, becoming pronounced, upon, RSA No. 119 of 1983. Even though, lack of any application, becoming instituted earlier before this Court by the litigant concerned, especially during, the, pendency, of, RSA No. 119 of 1983, may become minimally overcome, by one Kehar Singh, through the afore made endeavor therein, wherethrough he hence acquiesced, vis-a-vis, his being the sole surviving legal heir, vis-a-vis, the estate, of, Smt. Bhungi, arrayed, as, co-appellant No.5 in the afore appeal. Nonetheless the effect thereof yet cannot become fully overcome, as, the plaintiffs, given, theirs becoming constituted, as, apt legatees, vis-a-vis, the estate of Bhungi, hence, through, a, testamentary disposition, made in their favour, besides conspicuously, with the validity, of, execution, of, the afore testamentary disposition, becoming proven, by one, of, the marginal witness thereto, one, Heera Singh (PW-3 in Case No. 179-1 of 1988), (i) who, in his testification makes articulations, vis-a-vis his sighting, the, deceased testator, to, thumb mark or signature it, and, also make echoings, qua, in the presence of the deceased testator, his also making, his, relevant embossings thereon(s). 8. In aftermath, the afore echoings borne in the testification, of, a marginal witness thereto, when clearly falls, within, the four corners, of, the requisite statutory provisions, as, embodied in Section 63, of, the Indian Succession Act, for, thereupon, the apposite testamentary disposition becoming validly construable to become proven, hence to become validly and duly executed, by, the deceased testator, (a) thereupon, the proven execution, of, a valid testamentary disposition by Bhungi, vis-a-vis, the plaintiffs, rather vests, in, them, an indefeasible right, to, succeed to her estate. However, the afore vested right(s) inuring qua them, has become scuttled. 9. Nowat, given the acquisition, of, indefeasible rights hence by the plaintiffs, through, a validly proven testamentary disposition, as, made in their favour by one Bhungi, (i) hence, after arraying of one Balbir Singh, as, a litigant, in, the afore lis, it was also imperative, for, the contesting litigants to make pleadings qua his, at, the stage of RSA No. 119 of 1983, being sub judice rather thereat his being unaware, vis-a-vis, rather through the apposite testamentary disposition made, by one Bhungi, vis-a-vis, the plaintiffs, the latters becoming constituted, as, her legal representatives, and, hence, thereupon and thereat, rather his becoming capacitated, to, validly represent the estate of the afore deceased litigant, and, whereupon alone his hence claiming, to be her sole legal heir, rather becoming construable, to, arise from, sheer inadvertence, (ii) and, also thereafter consonant therewith bespeakings were enjoined, to be, emanating, from, him. However, none of the afore apposite averments rather exist in the extant pleadings nor consonance therewith cogent evidence becomes adduced. However, none of the afore apposite averments rather exist in the extant pleadings nor consonance therewith cogent evidence becomes adduced. In sequel the afore untenable endeavor, of, one Balbir Singh, father of the plaintiffs, rather invites thereon, the wrath, of his through practicing, the, apposite taints, of, suggestio veri, and, suggestio falsi, his hence thereafter and therethroughs rather ensuring, the making of a stained compromise decree, and, hence this Court becomes constrained, to, construe, vis-a-vis, the afore decree, being unlawful, and void, and, also this Court firmly concludes, that, the mandate of Order XXIII Rule 3A of CPC, not hereat becoming attracted, vis-a-vis, the plaintiffs suit. 10. In view of above, RSA No. 209 of 2003 is dismissed. Since, RSA No. 210 of 2003, is, dependent upon RSA No. 209 of 2003, and, with RSA No. 209 of 2003, being dismissed, and, thereupon RSA No. 210 of 2003, is, also dismissed. All pending applications in both the appeals stand dismissed. The impugned verdict(s) are maintained and affirmed. Substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. No costs. Records be sent back.