Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. The first question we have to decide is, whether this second appeal has been compromised as alleged by Vishnu Nambudri respondent 1. The suit relates to a Nambudri illom. Its karnavan was one Sankaran Nambudri, respondent 2. Vishnu, above named, is the cousin of that Sankaran. Vishnu filed the suit out of which this second appeal arises, namely, O.S. No. 344 of 1923 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Quilandy. That suit was filed on 5th July 1923. Vishnu, the plaintiff, impeached in that suit a certain alienation made by the karnavan Sankaran in favour of defendants 9 and 10. Defendant 9 is the appellant before us. The alienation took the form of a kanom dated 7th December 1922. The District Munsif dismissed the suit holding that the transaction was binding on the tarwad. His judgment was delivered on 17th December 1924. From that, an appeal was taken to the District Judge who set aside the Munsifs judgment on 16th March 1926. This second appeal was presented on 6th September 1926. (Here his Lordship here considered the question as to the factum of compromise and proceeded as follows:). We must therefore negative the contention that there was