JUDGMENT

R. M. SAHAI, J.:- This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. Even though a certificate was granted by the High Court under Article 133(1) of the Constitution of India as there was no decision of this Court on the question whether the rights of a reversioner to get a declaratory decree stands frustrated after coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, the real issue is if the appellants who were remote reversioners were competent to sue on the compromise decree obtained by them in lifetime of the female next reversioner who became owner under the Hindu Succession Act.

2. It has been found by all the Courts below that one Sunder was owner of extensive property which were in nature of a joint family property. He executed a gift in favour of a distant collateral Brij Lal which was challenged by the appellants who were the remote reversioners. The suit was compromised between parties that is the appellants, Sunder the alienor and Brij Lal, the alienee, and his brothers. As a result of the compromise 15 Kanals and 15 Marlas i.e. 1/8th share of the land which had been the subject of gift by Sunder in favour of Brij Lal was to