K. VEERASWAMI, C.J. :- The plaintiff, who has failed in both the Courts below, is the common appellant. He is now dead and is represented by his legal representatives. On a claim that the properties described in the plaint in O. S. 69 of 1960 and in the first schedule to the plaint in O. S.70 of 1960, from out of which the second appeals arise, were not the subject-matter of O. S.76 of 1948, and the compromise decree passed therein, though covered those properties, was not registered, he sought in the two suits to recover their possession. The suits were resisted on the ground that the properties did form part of the subject-matter of O. S.76 of 1948, that therefore, no registration was required, and that, in any case, the plaintiff would not be entitled to recover them, because of the doctrine of part performance. The Courts below concurrently found that although the properties were not in the plaint in O. S.76 of 1948, they constituted the subject-matter of the suit and that, in any event, the defence based on part performance was well founded.

2. The same grounds of the plaintiff are reiterated before us, in addition to a contention that the compromise decree in O. S.76