Compromise between appellant and respondent held not valid.

For the sake of convenience, I am adopting the rank of the parties as in the appeal. The appellant was the first defendant in the suit out of which the appeal has The first respondent was the plaintiff and respondents 2 and 3 were defendants 2.

2. The suit relates to three Schedules of properties. A Schedule comprises of two Schedule relates to certain houses and C. Schedule to certain lands. The first respondent prayed for a declaration of his title over the A Schedule properties and for delivery possession of item No.1 thereof and for injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of item No.2 thereof. The prayer with reference Schedule was for a division of the same into nine equal shares and for allotment shares to the first respondent. With reference to the C Schedule, the prayer was for and separate allotment of l/4th share. There was also a prayer for mesne profits reference to A Schedule and C Schedule properties. The first respondent, the appellant the third respondent are brothers. The first respondent; was described as an insane and the suit was instituted by his wife as next friend. The case of the first respondent that the A Schedule properties were acquired by his father from out of the income exclusive properties belonging to the first respondent and he was managing the same guardian. According to. the first respondent, though the properties were purchased name of the father, they belonged exclusively to the first respondent and the father right to bequeath the same in favour of the appellant under his will dated 15.12.1983. reference to B Schedule properties, the first respondent claimed that he was entitled own right to l/3rd share as a member of the joint family and to another l/9th share death of the father, as according to him, the will dated 15.12.1983 should be completely ignored. With reference to C Schedule properties which were the exclusive properties father, the first respondent claimed that it devolved on all the four children on the father and thus, he was entitled to l/4th share.

3. While the suit was opposed by the appellant and the third respondent, the respondent made an endorsement on the plaint submitting to a decree as prayed appellant contended that the first respondent was not insane and he was capable of after his own affairs and the suit should be dismissed as not maintainable on that ground was also the contention of the appellant that the will dated 15.12.1983 executed father was genuine and valid and under the said will, the entire A Schedule properties been bequeathed to him. With reference to B Schedule properties, it was the specific that the father ’ s 1/3rd share passed on to him under the will while the first respondent the third respondent were entitled to 1/3rd share each. With reference to C Schedule, contended by him that he got the entirety of it under the will and the first respondent share therein.

4. The third respondent filed a separate written statement. He also raised the contention that the plaintiff was not insane and that the suit was not maintainable. With reference the will of the father he admitted the genuineness and the validity of the same and make any claim to either of the items in the A Schedule. With reference to B properties, he reiterated the contention put forward by the appellant that himself, respondent and the appellant were each entitled to 1/3rd share. He prayed for a decree reference to his share in the B Schedule properties. However, he did not pay any court for effecting a division and allotting 1/3rd share to him. With reference to C Schedule, not make any claim at all.

5. The trial court held that the first respondent was an insane person incapable of care of his own affairs. It was held that the purchase of A Schedule properties was income derived from the properties of the first respondent and they were intended the benefit of the first respondent. While the will was held to be genuine, it