Judgment

MAHAJAN J. : The dispute in this appeal concerns the zamindari and house properties last owned by Shah Chiranji Lal who died at a young age on the 14th May 1913, leaving him surviving a widow, Mst. Khem Kuer, and his mother Mst. Mohan Kuer, besides a number of collaterals, indicated in the pedigree table below:

2. Mst. Khem Kuer, the young widow of Shah Chiranji Lal was murdered on the 28th August 1919 and Mst. Mohan Kuer, the mother, died on the 5th December 1932. Mst. Prem Kuer, the respondent in the appeal, claiming herself to be the heir to Shah Chiranji Lal as his sister; brought the suit giving rise to this appeal in the Court of the civil judge, Agra, against, amongst others, Mst. Phool Kuer, the present appellant, for recovery of possession of the properties of Shah Chiranji Lal and mesne profits.

3. Mst. Prem Kuer joined her half-sister Mst. Ram Kuer and their sons as plaintiffs along with herself. In the array of defendants were impleaded Mst. Phool Kuer and Mst. Khem Kuer, widows of Shah Jwala Prasad and Shah Madho Lal and his sons and a host of others as transferees of the properties.

4. The main defence to the suit was that Shah Jwala Prasad and Shah Madho Lal were recognized to be the owners and heirs to the entire estate of Shah Chiranji Lal by Khem Kuer and Mohan Kuer in a family settlement arrived at between the parties in suit No. 120 of 1915, that by virtue of this family settlement the estate of the deceased was vested in them subject to the life estates of the two women and that the plaintiffs who came to be recognized as reversioners by the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act II, 1929, were not entitled to claim it. It was further pleaded that on the death of Khem Kuer in 1919, Mohan Kuer surrendered the estate in favour of Jwala Prasad and Madho Lal and they took possession of it as owners and the plaintiffs who subsequently became statutory heirs in 1919 could not be allowed to question the surrender and reopen the succession which could not remain in abeyance.

5. The learned additional civil judge who tried the suit, dismissed it holding that the compromise of 1915 was a bona fide settlement of a bona fide dispute and was binding as a family settlement being for the benefit of the estate, that Mohan Kuer surrendered the estate validly in favour of Jwala Prasad and Madho Lal and they entered into possession of it after the death of Khem Kuer. Some of the transferees who had been impleaded as defendants compromised the suit with the plaintiffs and that part of the suit was decided according to the terms thereof between those parties.

6. Mst. Prem Kuer preferred an appeal to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad against the decree dismissing her suit. The High Court by its judgment dated the 26th October 1943 allowed the appeal, reversed the findings of the learned additional Civil Judge on the above issues and decreed the plaintiffs suit with costs. Some of the transferee-defendants compromised with the plaintiff-appellant in the High Court and the appeal was decided in terms thereof in their favour.

7. Two main points which are in controversy in this appeal and require consideration, are, 1. Whether the compromise in suit No. 120 of 1915 amounts to a family settlement and binds the plaintiffs -respondents, and, 2. Whether the surrender by Mst. Mohan Kuer was a valid surrender under Hindu law.

8. In order to appreciate the respective contentions of the parties, it is necessary to set out shortly in chronological order the history of the events which has resulted in this controversy.

9. As already stated, Shah Chiranji Lal died on the 14th May 1913, leaving considerable movable and immovable property. At the time of his death, his widow Khem Kuer was about eleven years old and his mother Mohan Kuer was about 53 years old. The two reversioners, Shah Jwala Prasad and Shah Madho Lal made an application for mutation of names of the estate in their favour claiming it on the basis of a wi