The main legal principle established in the judgment is that a compromise decree suffered by a guardian of minors can be set aside if there is gross negligence, fraud, or withholding of material facts. The obligation is on both parties to place all relevant materials before the court, especially when minors are concerned.

Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the two daughters of one Lingaraju Bytharu, a resident of Pandyajholi village, Berhampore taluk, Ganjam district, for a declaration that the compromise decree suffered by their grandmother Dimmala Mutyalu in Order. 8. No. 178 of 1921 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Berhampore is null and void and not binding on them. The ground alleged was that the properties, which were dealt with by the compromise decree, belonged to their father in his sole and absolute right, that they were devised by him before his death in favour of his daughters, the plaintiffs in this suit and another daughter since deceased, on certain terms mentioned in his last will and testament dated 12th August 1920, and that by reason of the gross negligence of their grandmother she was induced to enter into a compromise by Somanatha Bythari, the father of the defendants, and the paternal uncle of their father by reason whereof they lost a considerable portion of the property. The learned District Munsif upheld their plea and set aside the compromise decree. The learned Subordinate Judge reversed the decision of the learned District Munsif. He was of the opinion that as the compromise was certified by the counsel appearing for the plaintiffs in the prior litigation and sanctioned by the Court, it could not be set aside in view of the state of circumstances that existed at the time of the compromise. He further found that the father of the defendants was under no obligation to place before the Court any material opposite to the contention which he was advancing in the said suit. This second appeal has been preferred against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge by plaintiff 2, plaintiff 1 being made a party to the appeal.

2. It is strenuously contended in appeal by Mr. Anantha Ayyar on behalf of the appellant that the learned Judge has not correctly appreciated the law bearing on the question as to how far the compromise decree suffered by the guardian of the minors can be set aside and that in arriving at the conclusion he did, he has omitted to consider several material facts which were admittedly beyond dispute. Before dealing with the contention, it is necessary to state exactly the circumstances and the facts that existed at the time the compromise was entered into. Lingaraju Bytharu, the father of the plaintiffs, was one of the four sons of one Jagannatho Bytharu, the other sons being Panchakshari, Gangadharo, the grandfather of the defendants and the father of Somanath Bytharu and Lokanatha Bytharu. Both Panchakshari and Lokanatha had no issue, male or female. Lokanatha appears to have died very early leaving his widow Mahalakshmi. It was found by the learned District Munsif that in or about 1890 there was a reference to arbitration as evidenced by Ex. J to divide the family properties and the parties thereto were Lingaraju, Panchakshari, Gangadharo and Mahalakshmi, widow of Lokanatha, and in pursuance thereof there was a division in and by which the family properties were divided in certain shares. This finding was not disturbed by the learned Subordinate Judge in appeal. Subsequent to the said date the brothers have been living separately and enjoying their properties and dealing with them separately. That the brothers were in enjoyment of their properties separately has been found by the learned District Munsif and this finding has not been challenged in second appeal. Further it could not be attacked in view of the undisputed documentary evidence in the case. So far as Lingaraju is concerned, he seems to have obtained about 1 acre odd lands and a house in Lati village.

3. Subsequent to the said partition, he appears to have purchased about 7 acres of land in the village of Satto Pandva in or about 1897 (Ex. P). All these properties were without any doubt admittedly enjoyed by Lingaraju; the pattas stood in his name, muchilikas were obtained from