Abdur Rahman, J.

1. The facts out of which this appeal has arisen are not in dispute and lie in a narrow compass. A mortgage was executed on the 24th April, 1915, by one Kandaswamy, father of defendants 1 and 2 in favour of Muthukumaraswami Pillai who died in 1918 leaving him surviving a widow and two daughters. The widow appears to have died shortly after her husband and we are not concerned with her in the present litigation. The money due under the mortgage was not paid and one of Muthukumaraswamis daughters brought the present suit in June, 1932, for the sale of mortgaged property but she did not implead the other daughter as a party. This led the third defendant, who had purchased the mortgaged property from Kandaswamy and undertaken to discharge the mortgage debt, to raise the objection that the plaintiff was "not entitled solely and exclusively to sue on

2. The determination, of the question whether the plaintiff was entitled to sue depends mainly on a compromise arrived between her and her sister on the 8th October, 1930, in a suit for partition instituted by the latter in the Court of the District Munsif of Mayavaram (O.S. No. 5 of 1930) and embodied, in a decree (E