1. We think that the compromise evidenced by the Exhibits II and III entered into in 1890 between the plaintiff (who was then a minor) through his grand-mother and guardian Somakka on the one hand and the 1st defendant on the other hand, is a valid and binding compromise and that the plaintiff is not at liberty to dispute it now.

2. At the time the compromise was entered into, each party claimed to be himself entitled to the whole of the property of the deceased. Somi Reddi denied the title of the other to any part of it The plaintiff, through his grand-mother, claimed to be entitled, by virtue of his adoption by Tirumal Reddi, the grandson of Somi Reddi, but this adoption and the will alleged to have been made at the same time, were both drafted by the first defendant, Malla Reddy, who was then in possession of the property, and who claimed to be entitled to the whole of it as the illatom son-in-law of Somi Reddy. His position as an illatom son-in-law had been acknowledged and recorded as long ago as 1852 in Exhibit II which was executed by Somi Reddy and by his eldest son Pedda Venkata Reddi.

3. It may be a question whether his status as an illatom son-in-iaw could have bee