S. JAGADEESAN, J.

The appellant has filed this appeal against the order of the learned single Judge in Application No. 6041 of 1992 in T.O.S. No. 5 of 1981 dated 15-6-1998.

2. The subject matter arises out of the Will executed by one Bhoopathy. The appellant and the second respondent are his daughters and the first respondent is his son. He died on 7-4-1975. On the whole he left three Wills dated 28-4-1966, 7-8-1974 and 18-3-1975. Under the Will dated 28-4-1966 the testator has given the entire property in Door No. 4, Mylai Ranganathan Street, T. Nagar, Madras to his wife Kuppammal. Subsequently in the second Will dated 7-8-1974 he bequeathed half of the said property to his son Durairaj, the first respondent herein and the other half to his grand daughter Baby alias Sheela, through his daughter Kuppammal, the second respondent herein. In the said Will he has also provided a Clause for the payment of Rs. 50/- every month to the appellant herein from out of the rents received from the property. Again as a last Will, he left the same dated 18-3-75 whereunder he bequeathed half share of the said property to the second respondent herein and the other half share to her daughter Baby alias Sheela.

3. The first respondent herein filed O.P. 136 of 1976 for the grant of letters of administration on the basis of the second Will dated 7-8-74. As the same was contested by the second respondent herein, it was converted into T.O.S. No. 5 of 1981. The second respondent also filed O.P. 341/81 for the grant of letters of administration under the Will dated 18-3-1975 and that was also converted as T.O.S. No. 3 of 1983.

4. During the pendency of those T.O.S. the appellant herein filed an application No. 1912/84 in T.O.S. No. 5/81 and application No. 1911/84 in T.O.S. 3/83 for impleading her as a party to the proceeding. Both the applications were allowed. Before she was impleaded as party/respondent, the witnesses were examined in the T.O.S. After impleading the appellant, she did not take any steps to cross-examine the witnesses by recalling them and she never participated in the further proceedings at the argument stage.

5. One Padmasini filed Application Nos. 2987 and 2988 of 1993 in T.O.S. No. 5 of 1981, giving consent for the grant of letters of administration in favour of the first respondent herein. Subsequently the matter was settled and a compromise was entered into between the respondents herein and consequently a compromise decree was passed in T.O.S. 5/81 or in other words letters of administration was granted in favour of the first respondent herein in terms of compromise in T.O.S. No. 5/81 on 31-7-1991. Pursuant to the said compromise, a cheque was sent to the appellant herein for a sum of Rs. 30, 000/- towards the arrears of the monthly rent due to her on the terms of the Will dated 7-8-1974. The appellant sent a notice to the second respondent stating that she is taking steps for setting aside the compromise decree in T.O.S. 5/81.

6. Application No. 6041/92 was filed for setting aside the compromise decree passed in T.O.S. 5/81. The said application was dismissed by the learned single Judge. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed.

7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant being a party to the proceeding in both the T.O.S. the respondents herein are not entitled to enter into a compromise without informing the appellant. He further contended that the appellant was not served with any compromise memo much less the application for recording the compromise. Hence the compromise entered into between the respondents is behind the back of the appellant and as such the T.O.S. could not have been disposed of without any reference to the claim of the appellant. Even in the compromise memo, the respondents have omitted to mention the name of the appellant in the cause title and perhaps mislead the Court to record the compromise, as if there is no other party involved in the pr