( 1 ) THE special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution is directed against the affirming judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High court in a suit for title and injunction.

( 2 ) IN view of the fact that a petition of compromise in respect of the entire subject matter of litigation has been filed in this court it is unnecessary to refer to the facts leading to the litigation. We shall, therefore, confine the discussion to matters pertinent to the compromise.

( 3 ) SUBBAMMA adopted one K. V. Seshaiah. Seshaiah married two wives. Through the first wife he had a son born to him by name Sudarshan Guptha and through the second another son by name Anand Babu. In February 1985, during the pendency of the special leave petition the adoptive mother died. Sudarshan and Anand Babu laid claim to the entire property of Subbamma exclusively to each of them under two different wills said to be by Subbamma and each contended that the other wilt was a forged one. With the death of the adoptive mother, Seshaiah laid claim to the entire property as heir. While each of the parties had taken such stand in the litigations a compromise was brought about on 21/08/1987 between the father and his two sons and the same was filed in this court. The terms of the compromise stipulated payment of Rs. 1 lakh by the father to each of his two sons in lieu of relinquishment of their interest. When the matter was listed before the court for recording of the compromise, Sudarshan Guptha, respondent 2 herein, maintained that he had not been paid Rs. I lakh as stipulated and he had no intention to accept the compromise. The question as to recording of the compromise was taken up by the court and parties have been heard.

( 4 ) ONE of the stipulations in the compromise deed which has admittedly been signed by the father and his two sons stipulates :

"the petitioner has given to the second and third respondents (the two sons) an amount of Rs. I lakh each and the second and third respondents have received the same. "in the face of such a statement in the compromise deed signed by the parties respondent 2 has disputed the fact of payment and has, in the meantime, alienated about 81 acres of property which constitutes the subject matter of dispute to third parties. The alienees have now been brought on record under orders of this court.

( 5 ) WE have heard counsel for the original parties as also the alienees. The alienations are for about a purported consideration of Rs. 4 lakhs. The sale deeds indicate that a sum of Rs. 1 lakh had been received earlier and a net amount of Rs. 77,124. 00 out of the consideration money under these documents has been paid before the registering authority. The alienees have admittedly been in possession of the property from the date of the sales which is more than three years old by now.

( 6 ) ADMITTEDLY, the transfers are pendente lite. In fact, if the compromise is valid and binding the alienor-respondent 2 had no interest in the property to part with in view of the stipulation in the compromise that on receipt of Rs. I lakh he relinquished his entire interest in the property. The alienees have made an attempt to hold out that there were agreements for sale prior to the compromise for which there is no acceptable evidence. We think we have to find that the alienees had no. interest in the property prior to the compromise and we must hold that the sale deeds are subsequent to 21/08/1987.

( 7 ) MR Ram Kumar who appeared for respondent 2, apart from maintaining that his client has not received the sum of Rs. 1 lakh has not been able to point out any justification as to why the compromise should a not be acted upon and on the basis of it the litigation may not be disposed of. The factum of compromise is not in dispute. Respondent 2 and his counsel Mr Ram Kumar have accepted the fact that the parties have signed the compromise petition which contain terms which they had accepted and all parties have accepted the document of compromis