1. This second appeal has arisen from a suit which was instituted by two plaintiffs for a declaration that a decree passed against them in Original Suit No. 461 of 1918 on the file of the District Munsif s Court at Parvathipur was not binding on them and also for possession of the property which under that decree appears to have been obtained by the first defendant in this litigation who was the decree-holder in the previous suit. In the District Munsifs Court the plaintiffs suit was dismissed, but in the lower Appellate Court the learned Subordinate Judge, having arrived at the finding that the first plaintiff at least was a major on the date of the compromise on which the decree was passed, held that the decree was not binding on both the plaintiffs and, therefore, granted a decree in favour of both the plaintiffs declaring that the previous decree was not binding on them and also for delivery of possession of the property. It has been argued by the learned Vakil for the appellant before us that even on the ground on which the lower Appellate Court held that the previous decree was not binding on the plaintiffs, namely, that the first plaintiff at least was a major, the l