A legal title to property allotted under a compromise in a partition suit does not accrue until a final decree is formally engrossed on requisite stamped paper and signed by the Judge.

( 1 ) AN interesting question of law has arisen in this Second Appeal, namely, whether a legal title accrues in favour of a party in respect of a property which he has got under a petition of compromise filed by the interested parties in a suit for partition where no final partition decree has been engrossed on the requisite stamped paper as required by the Stamp Act.

( 2 ) AN order to understand how this question of law has arisen, it is necessary to state only the following facts. Respondent Santi Ranjan Banerjee was inducted in a portion of premises No. 14, Iswar Ganguli Street by the appellant at a monthly rent of Rs. 10/- which was subsequently raised to Rs. 11/ -. The appellant brought a suit for ejectment against the respondent alleging that the respondent had made defaults on three occasions of two consecutive months each within a period of 18 months prior to the institution of the suit. A further ground for ejectment made by the appellant was that the premises in the occupation of the respondent were reasonably required for the accommodation of the appellant and other members of his family because the existing accommodation was not sufficient for their requirement.

( 3 ) THE defence of the defendant was that the mother of the plaintiff and not the plaintiff was the landlord of the premises and that the allegations about default and reasonable requirements were unfounded. The learned Munsif who tried the suit framed necessary issues which arose upon the pleadings and by overruling all the objections put forth on behalf of the defendant he passed a decree for ejectment in favour of the plaintiff.

( 4 ) AN appeal was preferred by the tenant defendant and the lower appellate Court held that the plaintiff is not competent to maintain the suit because he had no subsisting title to the disputed premises at the time of the institution of the suit. Having taken this view on the question of plaintiff's title, the lower appellate Court did not think it necessary to go into other questions raised in the suit, namely, whether the tenant was a statutory defaulter and whether the plaintiff reasonably required the premises for his own use and occupation. The result was that the suit was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. The plaintiff thereupon filed the present appeal in this Court challenging the legality and correctness of the decision of the lower appellate Court.

( 5 ) THE only question which arises at the present stage is whether the lower appellate Court committed any error in law in holding that the plaintiff appellant had no subsisting title to the disputed premises at the time of the institution of the suit in the Court of the Munsif. The question of title involves the following admitted facts. The appellant had another pre-deccased brother of the name of Ranjit Mukherjee. Upon the death of Ranjit, his mother Haridasi Debi who is also the mother of the plaintiff became an heir of Ranjit. The appellant and his brother Ranjit were the owners of two house premises Nos. 14 and 14/1, Iswar Ganguli Street, Calcutta. These two premises became the subject matter of a suit for partition between the appellant and his mother Haridasi Debi in Partition Suit Ho. 11 of 1850. A joint petition of compromise was filed by the mother and the son in the partition suit on the 11th August, 1950 and an order was passed on the basis of the compromise partition on the same date. The order runs to the following effec :"both parties at first file hazira but subsequently they file a joint petition of compromise which he accepted. Let the terms of compromise be recorded so far as they relate to the subject-matter of the suit. Court-fee on plaint is sufficient. Ordered that the suit be decreed finally on compromise in terms of solenama which do form a part of the decree. "

( 6 ) ALTHOUGH an order was passed finally decreeing the suit in terms of the compromise petition on the 11th August, 1950, it is an admitted fact tha