JUDGMENT - Gajendragadkak, J.

1. The short question of law which this appeal raises for our decision is whether a compromise decree which contains a term contrary to the provisions of Section 10, T. P. Act is a nullity and can be ignored without setting it aside. This question arises in this way. In Civil Suit No. 341 of 1926, a claim was made by the present defendants 1 and 2 against the predecessors of the present plaintiff for accounts. Their allegation was that the defendant to that suit was their guardian and had not rendered accounts. Between the guardian and his wards, a compromise decree was passed and by this decree the guardian conveyed to the wards certain immovable property. The compromise decree provided that it is declared that the plaintiffs, meaning the wards, and their descendants alone shall enjoy the said land and the building, that they should not alienate the same by lease etc. and that they should let it out only to their caste people. If in contravention of these conditions the plaintiffs or their descendants alienate, then defendants 2 and 3 or their descendants shall be entitled to recover possession of the suit land and the house. It is clear that this clau

Click Here to Read the rest of this document