The judgment established the legal principle that in a representative suit, the parties have the right to settle their differences, and a compromise decree may not necessarily be binding on all members of the public.

( 1 ) THIS is a pltfs. appeal in a representative suit brought under Rule 8 of Order 1, Civil P. C. , on behalf of the Hindus of the village of Alampur against the Muslims of the same village for a declaration that the suit land is one in which the public has got the right of use as playground or grazing ground etc. , and for an injunction to restrain the defts. from using the land as a burial ground.

( 2 ) THE pltfs. ' case is that in Khatian No. 159/1 of Mouza Alampur covering an area of 3 bighas and 1 cottah, 1 bigha and 2 cottahs was a graveyard of the Muslims of that village and the remaining 1 bigha and 19 cottah was used by the villagers as a football ground. This football ground is also claimed to be used as a grazing ground for the cattle of the villagers. There had been a previous litigation in respect of this property in 1928 when a representative suit was brought on behalf of the Muslims of that village for a declaration that the lands covered by the entire Khatian were burial ground. A consent decree was passed in that suit and the representatives of the two communities, as impleaded in that suit, agreed that in 1 bigha, 19 cottahs the public had the right of use as a playground including 1 cottah as Bhagar and that the rest of it, that is, 1 bigha and 2 cottahs was a burial ground. A decree was passed accordingly. The pltfs. ' case is that since 1928 up to the time when the present suit was filed, there had not been any difficulty or dispute, as the two separate portions were being used for the purposes, as agreed upon in the previous suit, until an attempt was made by some members of the public to use a portion of the playground to bury dead bodies in the suit land. That was the occasion for the filing of the present suit.

( 3 ) THE defts. were also impleaded in their representative capacity. Of those, defts. 11 and 25 contested the suit denying the allegation made in the plaint claiming inter alia that the entire 3 bighas and 1 cottah plot formed the burial ground of the Muslims and also pleading that the previous decision on compromise was not binding on the public.

( 4 ) VARIOUS issues were raised and they may be put in two broad heads, (1) whether the previous decree in Title Suit No. 619 of 1928 was binding on the 'parties and was a bar to the claim put forward by the defts. ; and (2) irrespective of the legal effect of the earlier decision, whether, as a matter of fact, the pltfs. have proved their alleged right, title and interest in 1 bigha, 19 cottahs of land, the subject-matter of the suit, to be used as a playground etc.

( 5 ) THE learned Munsif found that the previous decree binds the parties and that the defts. had failed to prove that the lands were Pirottar lands and the plaintiffs had been able to prove a right of easement as claimed by long user for more than 20 years. The suit was accordingly decreed. "

( 6 ) ON appeal before the learned Subordinate Judge by the defts. he held that the previous suit having been disposed of on compromise, the members of the public are not bound thereby. As regards the merits, it has been held that there could be no question of any acquisition of easement right by the pltfs. in the suit land. The pltfs. had also failed to establish their title in the suit land. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the suit dismissed. Hence this second appeal on behalf of the pltfs.

( 7 ) THE first question for consideration is as regards the effect of the previous decree in Title Suit No. 619/28. We have, in the first instance, to consider whether a representative suit brought under the provisions of Rule 8 of Order 1, Civil P. C. may be settled by the parties and also whether a compromise decree may be pleaded as raising a bar of res judicata against the parties or their representatives in that suit.

( 8 ) THERE had been some difference of opinion at one stage as to whether Section 11, Civil P. C. , was attracted, if the previous decree is one not pa