The main legal point established in the judgment is that a compromise decree can establish the validity of a mortgage and estop a party from contesting it in a subsequent suit.

1. The suit in this case was instituted for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,929 10-0 with interest which the plaintiff alleges to hi due to him from the defendants from the 27th April, 1900. The plaintiffs case is that the villages mentioned in Schedules A and B appended to the plaint were mortgaged by the plaintiff to the defendants father, Subbi Chetty, on the 21st of May 1890 tinier two documents for a sum of Rs. 100,000 and Rs. 51,5,00, respectively; that the first of these mortgage deeds, filed as Exhibit A in the suit, was void and unenforceable, being contrary to Section 257-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that the second deed, Exhibit B, was also void for the same reason with respect to Rs. 31,343-9-1 out of the total sum of Rs. 51,500; that the villages mortgaged under the two deeds passed into the possession of the mortgagee and continued to remain in his possession till July 1900, when they were taken possession of by the Court of Wards when the superintendence and management of the plaintiffs zemindari of Karvetnagar were assumed by it, and that the villages remained in the Court of Wards possession till 1905, when the Court of Wards released its superintendence and handed over possession of the villages to the mortgagee. The plaintiff claims to be entitled to recover the entire profits of the villages in Schedule A and included in the mortgage-deed, Exhibit A. He claims also to be entitled to an account from the defendants of the incomes of the villages included in Exhibit B on the footing that the amount due to the defendants under Exhibit B was only Rs. 20,156-14-3 and estimates the amount that would be due to the plaintiff on such account being taken at Rs. 2,935-9-6.

2. Subbi Chetty had obtained two decrees against the plaintiff in Civil Suits Nos. 197 of 1882 and 117 of 1883 on the Original Side of this Court for large sums of money. These decrees were transferred for execution to the District Court of North Arcot. He took out execution of the decrees in the District Court, and while the execution proceedings were pending, the parties made an adjustment of all their disputes, and the result was the execution of four mortgage bonds by the plaintiff to Subbi Chetti, two of which are the bonds, Exhibits A and B, now sued on. The total amount found to be due to Subbi Chetti was Rs. 1,79,000 in which was included about Rs. 20,000 and odd on other accounts and the remainder w a the amount due on account of the two decrees The execution proceedings had previously been adjourned on several occasions in both cases, and the judgment-debtor had agreed, in consideration of the decree-holder consenting to the adjournments and giving him time for payment, to pay enhanced interest; the sanction of the District Court had been obtained by the parties for the agreements to pay enhanced interest but not the sanction of the High Court as required by Section 257-A of the Civil Procedure Code. The total amount thus added to the amount of the decree in C.S. No. 197 was about Rs. 40,000 and Rs. 4,000 was added to the amount due under C.S. No. 117. The four mortgage bonds were all executed on the same day and evidently represented a single transaction. Each of them refers to the amounts secured under the other bonds and purports to be for the remaining amount out of the total found due by the plaintiff. Exhibits A and B are both usufructuary mortgage-deeds. The period fixed for redemption was 15 years and the mortgagee was entitled to possession during the term, the entire usufruct being appropriated towards the interest due on the bonds. The plaint alleges that this Court which passed the decrees in the two Suits Nos. 197 of 1882 and 117 of 1883 not having sanctioned the arrangements made by the parties "for the payment of a larger sum than was legally due" under them, the mortgage Exhibit A and so much of the mortgage Exhibit B as went in satisfaction of the decree in C.S. No. 197 are void in law, and he institutes thi