The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the effect of a compromise and compromise decree in a partition suit, emphasizing the intention to separate all branches of a joint family and the consequences of filing a suit for partition.

Ramesam, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration and for some-incidental reliefs. The facts of the case may be shortly stated. Plaintiff 1 had two brothers, Rangaswami Ayyangar and Varahaswami Iyyangar. Varahaswami Iyyangar died in January 1890 but before his death he adopted plaintiff 1s second son, Krishnaswamy Iyyangar. Plaintiff 1s two other sons are now plaintiffs 2 and 3. The whole family constituted a joint family and continued joint until 1915. It is admitted that plaintiff 1s brother Rangaswami Iyyangar was living an extravagant life which ended in large indebtedness and suits and decrees against him. The rest of the family found this situation inconvenient. By this time Krishnaswamy Iyyangar has taken a law degree and became a High Court Vakil and had settled for practice at Negapatam. He found that the only way of saving the family was by a suit for partition and getting rid of Rangaswami: Iyyangar. Krishnaswami Iyyangar addressed a letter, Ex. Z to his uncle in-which he informed him that the plaint was ready, and a suit would have to be filed unless the addressee agreed to some-reasonable course which will be acceptable to the other members of the family. The result was that the plaint was filed in July 1915. This plaint was filed by the present plaintiff 1. Krishnaswami Iyyangar was arrayed as defendant 7. The present plaintiffs 2 and 3 were not parties to that suit. Rangaswami Iyyangar and his children and Krishnaswami Iyyangars adoptive mother were defendants 1 to 6 and 8. Exs. III (a) and III (b) are the written statements of the Contesting defendants, that is, defendants 1 to 6 and defendant 7. Defendant 7 adopted the position taken up in the plaint. The plaint prayed for the appointment of a commissioner and for division of the property into three shares and for other consequential reliefs. The suit was never tried but was compromised. A compromise petition was filed which is Ex. 1. Para. 1 of this compromise petition says:

The plaintiff and defendant 7 shall take items 1 to 6 (one to six) of the plaint Schedule 1 and items 46 and 47, 49 and 52 in equal shares i. e. the plaintiff shall take one half and defendant 7 one half.

2. The other clauses of the compromise deed mention the properties that were to be taken by defendant 1 and provide for debts and outstandings. Clause 10 says:

All the disputes amongst the plaintiff, defendant 1 and defendant 7 have thus been settled as aforesaid; in future they shall not have any claim against one another. Both the parties pray that a compromise decree be passed as they have come to a settlement.

3. A decree was passed in terms of the compromise and Ex. 1 was incorporated into it. Rangaswami Iyengar having been separated from the family by this compromise decree the present plaintiffs and Krishnaswami Iyyangar continued to live together up to 1919 when Krishnaswami Iyyangar died. Immediately after his death, his widow, the present defendant 1 claimed to have succeeded to his one third share of the original property or half share of the property that was allotted to the present plaintiff 1 and Krishnaswami Iyyangar in the compromise decree on the ground that he died a divided member. The plaintiffs denying her claim brought this suit for a declaration that she is not so entitled. The Subordinate Judge agreeing with defendant 1s contention disallowed the main contention of the plain-stiffs but gave a decree for certain other reliefs. The plaintiffs appeal.

4. The main question that has to be decided in appeal is what is the effect of the compromise and the compromise decree in O.S. No. 25 of 1915? It is contended by the appellants that the object of that compromise was only to separate Rangaswami Iyyangar and to keep the plaintiff and defendant 7 joint. Whatever might have been the intention, it was effected only by means of a suit filed by plaintiff 1 only. Krishnaswami Iyengar was arrayed as defendant 7. It is established law that by filing a suit for