The failure to comply with Order 32, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not render the compromise a nullity in its entirety. The compromise could be enforced as against the majors.

JUDGEMENT :- The plaintiffs in O.S No. 17 of 1970 in the Court of the Sub-ordinate Judge of Padmanabhapuram are the appellants. There was one A.P. Mohammed Noohu, who carried on extensive business in Ceylon and acquired properties in India as well as Ceylon during his lifetime. He died on 1st April 1959. On 30th May 1956 prior to his undertaking the Haj pilgrimage, he executed a number of settlements in respect of the properties covered by 'A' schedule to the plaint in favour of his wives and children. He had married two wives. The first plaintiff is the Indian wife and the first defendant is the Ceylonese wife. He has seven children by his Indian wife, who was also the first wife, and he has six children by his Ceylonese second wife. It is in favour of these two wives and children that the settlement deeds were executed on 30th May 1956.

2. After Mohammed Noohu died on 1st April, 1959, the plaintiffs filed a suit O.S. No. 9 of 1964 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Padmanabhapuram, which was later transferred to Sub-Court, Nagercoil and numbered as O.S. No. 24 of 1965. That was a suit for partition of all the properties including those settled under the document, dated 30th May 1956 in favour of the defendants. One of the contentions was that those settlements were invalid. Defendants 1 to 7 and others filed a suit O.S. No. 17 of 1964 in the same Sub-Court, Padmanabhapuram which was also transferred to the Sub-Court, Nagercoil and was numbered as O.S. No. 25 of 1965. The prayer was for administration of the estate and for accounts among other reliefs. O.S. No. 24 of 1965 was compromised and a decree in terms of the compromise was passed on 17th March 1966. O.S. No. 25 of 1966 was dismissed on 24th March 1969, on the ground that no suit for administration of the estate of a deceased Mohamedan lay. In pursuance of the compromise in O.S. No. 24 of 1965 certain other proceedings under S.145 of the Criminal Procedure Code were disposed of. One of the terms of the compromise of O. S. No. 24 of 1965 was that the parties shall be in possession of the properties described in the schedule to the plaint in the said suit till the title to the said properties were settled after discussion between the first plaintiff on the one hand and defendants 1 to 7 on the other, in that case, and that such settlement shall be arrived at within a period of three years from that date, that is 7-5-1966. If no such settlement was arrived at by that time, the plaintiffs and the 8th defendant were to be entitled to the half of items 1 to 17 and the other half should belong to defendants 1 to 7. There was no such settlement arrived at between the first plaintiff and defendants 1 to 7 within the period of three years as contemplated by the said compromise decree, marked as Ex. A-3-in the present case.

3. The plaintiff came forward with the present suit for a permanent injunction restraining defendants 9 to 19 from disturbing their possession of the plaint A and B schedule properties and restraining defendants 1 to 8 from alienating the plaint A and B schedule properties and for partition of their half share in the 'A' schedule properties by metes and bounds. The allegations in the plaint were that the deeds of settlement executed by Mohammed Noohu on 30th May, 1956 in favour of the defendants were sham or nominal and, in any event, invalid deeds, that the plaintiffs and the 8th defendant were in joint possession of the 'A' schedule properties as coowners in accordance with the terms of the compromise and that there should be a division by metes and bounds of the said properties. The alienations made by the defendants were questioned.

4. This suit was contested by the defendants contending that the settlement deeds were valid and effective, that the compromise on the basis of which the present suit for partition has been filed was itself void, as there were minors, for whom there was no lawful guardian so as to represent their interests in the sa