Sir John Edge :-

This is an appeal from a decree, dated the 21st August, 1919, of the High Court at Patna which, adversely to the plaintiffs, varied a decree, dated the 5th December, 1917, of the Subordinate Judge of Dhanbad. The respondent to the appeal who has appear ed in support of the decree of the High Court is Heramba Nath Bandopadhaya, who will be hereafter referred to as defend ant 1. The other respondents are pro forma respondents and have not appeared to support the decree of the High Court.

The litigation was between persons who were interested in the Ranidih Col liery and land in Mouza Ranidih. The suit in which these appeals have arisen is in effect a suit to enforce the terms of a compromise entered into in suit No. 106 of 1912 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Purulia, who had on the 30th August, 1913, made a decree upon that compromise. That Suit No. 106 of 1912, was brought by defendant I upon a mortgage of the 24th August, 1908, to obtain a decree for sale.

At the date when the compromise was entered into there were three suits pend ing between the parties besides suit No. 106 of 1912. The other suits were suit No. 300 of 1911, suit No. 345 of 1911 and suit No. 638 of 1911. Suit No. 300 of 1911 was a suit by defendant I on the original side of the High Court at Cal cutta : in that suit a preliminary decree had been made, and pending the determi nation of that suit the Ranidih Colliery had on the 27th March, 1911, been attached. There was also then pending a suit No. 412 of 1911, which was brought by the lessors of the colliery for rent and royalty against all the parties to these present appeals or those whom they represent. After the date of the compromise, but before this present suit, the High Court at Calcutta had in suit No. 300 of 1911 made a decree in favour of defendant 1, which he was threatening to execute when this suit was brought.

The form in which the relief is claimed in this present suit is as follows :-

"(1) That it may be declared that they are entitled to the 16 annas of the property detailed in the schedule below, free from all encumbrances, and that none of the defendants has any right or claim to it.

"(2) That it may be declared that defendant 1 is in no way entitled to inter fere with or to sell the said property in execution of the decree obtained by him in Suit No. 303 of 1911 of the Honour able High Court, in its original jurisdic tion.

"(3) That it may be declared that even if there was any attachment of the said property or any portion thereof in conse quence of the said suit of defendant 1 the same (attachment) is not valid, and that he is not entitled to derive any benefit thereunder.

"(4) That all the costs of the suit may be awarded to the plaintiffs.

"(5) That any other relief to which the plaintiffs be deemed legally and justly entitled may also be awarded.

"Schedule.

"Coal mine named Ranidih, and land in Mouza Ranidih, Thana Topechanchi, pergana Loyagarh, Sub-District Dhanbad, District Maubhum.

"East. - Boundary limits of Muchi Raidi Tardla Mouzas.

"West. - Boundary limits of Babudi, Pipratand and Tardla Mouzas.

"North. - Boundary limit of Tardla Mouza.

"South. - Boundary limits of Bhuranga and Pipratand Mouza.

"Within this boundary is situate coal mine and land comprising about 537 bighas, more or less, along with under, ground coal mine and Kuthi house, buildings, coals and appurtenances, etc., thereon entire right to all those sorts of movable and immovable (property)."

It appears from the evidence of Ananga Mohan Bhattacharjee, who is a pleader of standing and was professionally engaged as a pleader in suit No. 106 of 1912, that the hearing of that suit commenced on the 24th or 25th July, 1913, and that negotia tions for a compromise of that suit began when the hearing of the suit commenced. On the 29th July, 1913, the pleaders acting on behalf of their respective clients, the plaintiff and the defendants to the suit respectively agreed in the Bar Library upon the terms upon whic