JUDGMENT

1. This was an appeal by the tenant of certain lands on the basis of a compromise effected in a suit some years ago. That suit was brought by one Banku and others, who asserted that they were the tenants of the land, and sued for recovery of possession, making the present Appellant and the landlords Defendants to the suit. The suit was settled by an arrangement of a nature which is not uncommon, that the pre sent Appellant, who seem to be the real tenant of the land, should retain possession and should pay a certain rent, namely, Rs. 61. As the Appellant now pleads that the rent is Rs. 7-14, it is a fairly safe inference that the rent agreed upon by the compromise was to some extent an enhanced rent. The lower Appellate Court has given effect to this compromise and the Defendant appeals. The principal argument put forward in his favour is that the former suit related to the title of the land and was not concerned with the rent: and that therefore the compromise inasmuch as it dealt with matters beyond the scope of the suit, is inoperative. We have been referred to a large number of decisions which deal with the value to be attached to compromises of suits that go beyond the