Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

1. This is a petition put in by the plaintiffs, appellants in the Second Appeal No. 1333 of 1912 praying for the passing of a decree in accordance with the terms of a compromise signed by the two plaintiffs and by the 1st defendant. The first defendant though he has signed the compromise petition, opposed the application on the grounds (a) that he was induced to sign the compromise through undue influence exerted on him by the 2nd plaintiffs husband, (6) that the agreement was not the result of a bona fide compromise of doubtful claims but was really a sale of a portion of the 1st defendants rights for a very low consideration and that the sale was also invalid for want of proper consideration and (c) that the compromise is further illegal as it is really an alienation of a religious office to persons legally incompetent to hold the office (see 17th para of the 1st defendants affidavit, dated 2nd October 1913.)

2. Having considered the affidavits on both sides, I dont think that there is any force in the objections (a) and (6). No doubt it appears that the 1st defendant was in great pecuniary difficulties when he entered into the compromise, having been arr