1. The plaintiffs who are husband and wife, respectively, filed Special Suit No. 6 of 1952 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Nasik, for a decree for partition and separate possession of their one half share in certain properties. During the pendency of the suit it appears the parties arrived at a compromise and the terms of the compromise were reduced to writing.

Defendant 3 who was a minor was represented by defendant 1 his father; and the Court authorised defendant 1 to enter upon and sign the compromise terms on behalf of defendant 3. It appears that the pleader who appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs regarded the terms of the compromise as unfavourable to the plaintiff and he filed purchis Ex. 60 stating that no compromise terms were arrived at between the parties.

It may be mentioned that the compromise terms were settled on 15-7-1953. After the purshis Ex. 60 was filed by the pleader for the plaintiffs the suit stood adjourned for hearing to 22-7-1953. On 16-7-1953, plaintiff 1 and defendant 1 appeared before the Court and filed in Court a writing incorporating the terms of compromise. It was recorded at Ex. 64.

Exhibit 64 was signed by defendant 1, pl