1. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 99 of 1956 is instituted on behalf of opposite Party No. 1 against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Chapra, dated the 31st January, 1956, in Miscellaneous case No. 8 of 1955. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 216 of 1936 is instituted on behalf of opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5 against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Chapra of the same date in Miscellaneous Case No. 38 of 1955.

2. The first point taken on behalf of the appellants is that the compromise decree in Title Suit No. 2 of 1948 required registration, because plot No. 2240 was outside the scope of the suit, and in the absence of registration the compromise decree was not effective with regard to plot No. 2240. We do not think there is any substance in this argument. It appears that the plaintiff in the partition suit in the present case claimed exclusive title to plot No. 2240 but sought a decree for partition with regard to other properties. In the compromise decree there was an agreement between the parties that plot No. 2240 be exclusively allotted to the plaintiff and since the title of the plaintiff to plot No. 2240 was taken as part of the consideration for the compromise entered i