FAKKIR MOHAMMED, J. :- These applications have come by way of reference made by the learned, single Judge, Singaravelu, J., under the following circumstances :

2. The first plaintiff, one Sathappan, the quondam minor represented by his mother Meenakshi Achi as next friend, filed C. S. No. 188 of l972 on the file of this Court for partition and separate possession of his half share, for a declaration that the alienations made by the first defendant, who is the father of the first plaintiff, are void and not binding on the first plaintiff and for certain other consequential reliefs as against 72 defendants. Large items of properties described in eight schedules are the subject matter of the suit. Pending suit, the quondam minor first plaintiff attained majority. The father, first defendant, filed Application No. 4390 of 1982 in Nov., 1982 for passing a decree in terms of the compromise dated 30-8-1981. It was stated in the affidavit in support of that application that the first defendant had executed a partial partition deed of his own volition in 1972 in which he had settled all valuable immovable properties in favour of the first plaintiff, that since the plaintiffs instituted the suit in spite of the said fact, he had to revoke the partial partition on 9-6-1976, that the plaintiffs filed an application in 1978 praying that a decree might be passed in terms of the partial declaration deed dated 15-3-1971 suppressing the revocation dated 9-6-1976, and that at the instance of the important members of the Nagarathar community, who were interested in the welfare of the family, negotiations went on between the parties at Madras in June, July and Aug., 1981, by which the terms of the agreement were finalised and the impugned agreement was signed by the plaintiffs, first plaintiff's wife and the first defendant on 30-8-1981.

3. The first plaintiff filed a counter stating that the said compromise is vitiated by fraud, undue influence and misrepresentation and suppression of facts, that it is not a lawful agreement of compromise and that the Court should not record the compromise. Along with the counter, the first plaintiff also filed Application No. 118 of 1983 seeking directions to the first defendant father for submitting himself for cross-examination with reference to the affidavit filed in support of the main Application No. 4390 of 1982, if the first defendant did not choose to examine himself as a witness.

4. In the course of enquiry into these applications, it was contended on behalf of the first defendant, that since the execution of the compromise deed is admitted by the first plaintiff and the same has also been attested by the mother, who is the second plaintiff, along with the wife of the first plaintiff, the Court is bound to record the compromise without going into the further question as to whether the compromise is lawful or voidable. In support of such contention, the judicial decisions reported in Kuppuswami Reddi v. Pavanambal, AIR 1950 Mad. 728; Silver S. Enterprises v. Devki Nandan, AIR 1970 SC 669; Jadu Gopal v. Pannalal, AIR 1978 SC 1329 and Govindarajan v. K.A.N. Srinivasan Chetty, AIR 1977 Mad 402 had been cited before the learned single Judge by the first defendant father.

5. On the side of the first plaintiff a decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in Nallathambi v. Raghavan, AIR 1973 Mad 25 appears to have been cited for the proposition that the compromise effected by the managing member, in order to be binding on the junior members must be bona fide and for the benefit of the family as a whole. It was further submitted on behalf of the first plaintiff that in view of the explanation to O.XXIII, R.3 of the Civil P.C., introduced by the Amending Act, 104 of 1976, the compromise which is voidable under the Contract Act is not lawful and as such it cannot be recorded. It was argued on behalf of the first plaintiff that his Application No. 118 of 1983 should be ordered to give him an oppor