A decree based on the consent of a next friend or guardian ad litem is not binding on the party unless brought on record as major and a party to the consent. The circumstances to be taken into consideration in a suit for setting aside a previous decree include fraud, collusion, or gross negligence of the next friend or guardian ad litem.

( 1 ) THE suit O. S. 74 of 45-46 on the file of the Second Munsiff, Mysore, out of which this appeal arises was filled by the plaintiffs-appellants for cancellation of a 'rajinama' decree obtained by their mother as their next friend, in O. S. 35 of 45-46 on the file of the Second Munsiff, Mysore, and for partition and possession of their 3/4th share in plaint schedule properties.

( 2 ) THE case of the plaintiffs is that the plaint schedule properties are their ancestral properties and that the first defendant, their undivided father, who has been living separately from them leading a reckless life alienated for no legal necessity the joint family properties (plaint schedule items 1 and 2) to defts. 3 and 4. Their mother the second defendant filed the suit in O. S. 35 of 45-46 as their next friend in respect of these alienations but she effected a compromise under undue influence against the interest of the minors. Plaintiffs pray that the 'rajinama' decree in that _suit has to be set aside and they have to be_ given such relief as they are entitled to, in this suit, in view of the fact that the 'rajinama' is not binding on the first plaintiff in particular as he bad attained majority, when the compromise was entered into without his consent and is not binding on all the plaintiffs as it is against their interest.

( 3 ) DEFENDANTS 2 and 3 contended that the compromise in the previous suit was 'bona fide' and in the Interest of the minors and that the sales in their favour are binding on plaintiffs as they were effected for legal necessity though the plaint schedule properties were the ancestral properties of the family of the plaintiffs and their father. Both the courts have come to the conclusion that the first plaintiff had attained majority by the time the compromise was entered into, that the alienations in favour of defendants 3 and 4 were not for legal necessity, but that it was not under any undue influence that the mother of the plaintiffs entered into a compromise.

( 4 ) IT is not disputed that the first plaintiff had attained majority by the time the compromise was entered into. Both the courts have discussed at length the evidence on the question of legal necessity and it was not shown that there is any reason to disturb the concurrent findings of the courts below on this point. The main point for consideration is the effect of these findings. The learned Munsiff found that, as the sale has to be set aside anyway in respect of the first plaintiff's share in view of his having attained majority by the time of the compromise, it is desirable to set aside the entire compromise decree. He took into consideration also the fact that the alienations were not effected for any legal necessity and decreed the suit as prayed for. The learned Subordinate Judge agreed with the learned Munsiff that the sale has to be set aside in respect of the first plaintiff's share as he had attained majority by the time the 'rajinama* decree was passed and as he was not a party to it. But it was held by him that it did not necessarily follow that the decree even against the other plaintiffs has to be set aside. Though he agreed that the alienations were not for legal, necessity, he found that the case of plaintiffs 2 and 3 that their next friend entered into a compromise under undue influence was not true, and as such he dismissed the suit in so far as it related to the share of plaintiffs 2 and 3. Plaintiffs have appealed against this decision. Defendants 3 and 4 have filed cross-objections.

( 5 ) THE first point for consideration is whether a decree on the basis of a compromise entered into by the next friend of the minor plaintiffs is binding on one of the plaintiffs who had attained majority before the compromise. It has been laid down by Le Rossignol J. in --'ghulam Nabi v. Basheshar Mal', AIR 1922 Lab, 407 that: "a quondam minor cannot maintain a suit for. a declaration that a decree passed against him on a compromise