JUDGMENT :

1. The 1st appellant is the son and the 2nd and the 3rd appellants are the daughters of C. Punnaiah The 1st respondent-Ist defendant, Tirupatamma, is their mother. Their suit for recovery of possession of B, C and D schedule properties, except the land in an extent of half of Ac. 0-45 1 ½ cents of the northern half of Ac. 0-91 cents in D. No. 341/A in items 5 of the D schedule, was dismissed. As against the decree of dismissal, this appeal has been filed.

2. The facts of this appeal are as follows: In the year 1946 there arose disputes between their father, Punnaiah, and mother, the 1st respondent, resulting in the 1st respondent filing a suit, O.S. No. 146 of 1947, for maintenance for herself and the 3rd appellant. In that suit, Punniah was impleaded as the 1st defendant and her father-in-law as the 2nd defendant. However, at the instance of P. Ws. 1 and 2 and others, a compromise was effected and a compromise memo., was filed. A decree ensued thereunder. In the compromise the terms are as follows.

“(1) that the 1st plaintiff do live with her husband, the 1st defendant;

(2) that the 1st defendant do maintain plaintiffs 1 and 2 and lead a family life with his wife, the 1st