The main legal point established is that a valid and lawful compromise in a partition suit may be enforced if it results in the departing party relinquishing their claim to the family properties.

Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. This is an application to enforce a compromise is a suit for partition. Defendants 1 to 7 make the application and it is resisted by the plaintiff The suit relates to a Hindu family consisting of three branches. The plaintiff is the sole representative of his branch; the 8th defendant represents another branch and the third branch is represented by the defendant 1 and sons, defendants 2 to 7. Defendant 8 allowed the suit to proceed ex parte and the compromise was only as between defendants 1 to 7 on the one hand and the plaintiff on the other.

2. The terms were reduced to writing and engrossed in Tamil on a stamp paper. The arrangement is an extremely simple one. The first defendant and his sons agreed to pay the plaintiff Rs. 8,000 in full settlement of his claim in the family properties. The deed says that the plaintiff was thereafter to have no concern with the properties of the family, with the outstandings due or the debts payable. Defendants 1 to 7 were to pay the amount of Rs. 8,000 within one month from the date of the decree. A charge was to be created on the properties for this sum and as defendants 5, 6 and 7 are minors, sanction of the Court should be obtained on their behalf to make the compromise binding upon them. As I have said, the terms are so simple that any one perusing the document can easily understand them. The effect of the agreement is that the plaintiff receives Rs. 8,000 and separates himself from the family. It is impossible therefore to uphold the contention that the terms were not understood by him. The plaintiff now pretends that he was not even aware whether the agreement he signed was in English or in Tamil. This is on the face of it an absurd lie. It is alleged that he is deaf and partly blind.

3. It was sought to be made out that be was stone-deaf, but the attempt has utterly broken down. He was in the witness box for a considerable time and was able to hear every question put to him, only the interpreter was obliged to speak a little louder than usual. Then in regard to the other infirmity alleged, it is a gross exaggeration to say that he is partly blind. He was able to read his own signature and when sufficient light was allowed, also some portion of the rest of the document; I am convinced that for the purpose of this application, his infirmities, such as they are, have been magnified beyond limits of trust.

4. The compromise has a curious history. The plaintiffs vakil was Mr. Anandalwan. Defendants 1, 5, 6, and 7 appeared by Mr. Sivaprakasa Mudaliar and defendants 2, 3, and 4 by Mr. V. C. Gopalaratnam. The plaintiff suggests in his counter-affidavit that he was not permitted to interview his own vakil and that, on the other hand, he was forcibly taken to the advocate, Mr. G. Krishnaswamy Ayyars house where he was made to sign the compromise under some sort of compulsion. Mr. Subramania Ayyar, the son of Mr. Krishnaswami Ayyar and a vakil of this Court, has been examined on behalf of defendants 1 to 7. His evidence is very circumstantial and describes in great detail how the compromise was put through. It was the plaintiff that first approached him and the witness even believed that he was acting for him. The question naturally arises: How does it come about that the parties did not avail themselves of their own vakils and sought the help of a stranger vakil? I shall pass over the evidence of Mr. Subramania Ayyar and the first defendant on this point, for the matter is described very vividly by Mr. Krishnaswami Mudali (uncle of the plaintiff and defendant 1) with whose evidence I have been very well impressed. He deposes that the plaintiff was making complaints against his vakil Mr. Anandalwan, saying that the vakil got him to execute a writ-ting for Rs. 2,100 in favour of a third party who was to finance the suit and further got him to sign his name in the vakils diary promising to pay him an additional sum of Rs. 1 500. There is evidence that the plaintiff wa