JUDGMENT

TULZAPURKAR, J. :—The only question raised in this appeal relates to the construction of a compromise decree passed on Suit No. 31 of 1941. It arises thus:

A mortgage in respect of two houses (admittedly ancestral) was executed by Bachcha and Babu in favour of one Padmavati on 14-12-33. The document was also executed by Bachcha as the guardian of his minor nephew Chamru. Padmavati, the mortgage filed a suit to recover the mortgage-debt and obtained a decree on 23-2-1973. In execution the mortgaged property was sold and with permission of the Court Padmavati purchased that property and obtained possession of it in 1940. In 1941 Chamru through another guardian filed a suit (being Suit No. 31 of 1941) challenging the mortgage as being illegal and void. He also challenged the mortgage-decree as also the sale which took place in execution of that decree. His case was that the mortgage was without consideration, without legal necessity and not binding on him as Bachcha has no authority to act as his guardian. That suit ended in a compromise decree on 8-5-1941, whereunder the suit was decreed in respect of one house but dismissed in respect of the other house. It seems Babu in the