Judgement

Appeal from a decree of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh (Aug. 24, 1882), reversing a decree of the District Judge of Rae Bareli (June 30, 1881), which dismissed the Respondents suit to recover possession of an 8a. 7p. share of talookas Audari and Lewana, and in lieu thereof decreeing to the Respondents posses sion of a la. lip. share of the said talookas.

The question decided in the appeal was as to the legal effect under Mahomedan Law of a certain agreement of compromise made between Mahomedans represented by the parties to the appeal, and dated April 28, 1866.

The circumstances which led up to that compromise and resulted from it, and the proceedings in the suit, are sufficiently set out in the judgment of their Lordships.

The judgment of the District Judge (Mr. Saiyid Mahmoud), so far as material, was as follows—

" The parties being Sunnis, the suit is governed by the Hanafea school of Mahomedan Law. It is necessary to consider the nature of the rights conferred by the compromise of the 28th of April, 1866, on Abdus Subhan and Abdul Rahman. The terms of that compromise are contained in two applications of that date, one filed by Abdus Subhan, and the essential part o