Lord Blanesburgh. -

The short ques tion upon this appeal was whether the learned Judges of the High Court of Judi cature at Allahabad were justified in ordering, as they did on the 28th May 1923, that a written compromise of all questions in the suit, as between the appellant and the two respondents, should be filed and proceeded with. In making this order the High Court differed from the Subordinate Judge at Muzaffarnagar, who, on the 1st February 1922, had refused to pass such a decree.

Many questions were canvassed in the Courts in India. The issue, however, as presented to the Board, had become a narrow one. The facts on which it depends lie in a small compass.

The respondent Chaudhri Ghanshiam Singh is a Hindu of position. Amongst the properties with which he had appa rently dealt as his own were two villages : mauza Dudhli and mauza Barsu. These he had purported to mort gage with possession to the appellant Saiyid Mehdi Ali Khan. He had also granted a mortgage over mauza Barsu to one Lala Ghokal Chand. It is not necessary for present purposes to detail the mortgages over other property granted by Ghanshiam to other creditors and particularized in the plaint in this suit. It suf