Ramesam, J.

1. In revision petition, I am bound by the finding of the Subordinate Judge that the compromise was, as a fact, entered into by the plaintiff. I may add that I am of opinion that the postcards Exs. B and C are genuine and therefore, agree with his finding.

2. The razinama is that the suit should be withdrawn. This razinama is certainly not bidding on plaintiff 2. The question is whether plaintiff 1 should be held to be bound by St. Mr. Raghava Rao at first contended that plaintiff 1 is bound by it so far as his share is concerned. But this amounts to splitting, up the compromise into two separate-compromises and the facts do not justify it. The decision in Venkata Rao v. Tuljaram Row A.I.R. 1922 P.C. 69, shows that no portion of the joint estate is bound by the compromise. Mr. Raghava Rao then contended that plaintiff 2 may press his claim for the whole of the suit property and he would limit his contention to plaintiff 1 only and not his share of the property. But this seems to be a distinction by which nothing is gained. If the whole suit is to be tried, I do not see any object in saying that plaintiff 1 (though not his share) is bound. Moreover, there is Order