The relief granted in a compromise decree need not be confined to the relief prayed for in the plaint. All terms which form the consideration for the adjustment of the matters in dispute, whether they form the subject-matter of the suit or not, become related to the suit and can be embodied in the decree.

A.N.Grover, J.

1. This appeal is directed against an order recording a compromise in a dispute relating to property and other matters which arose primarily between husband and wife.

2. In March, 1962 Shrimati Rajinder Kaur wife of Sodhi Mohinder Singh filed a suit against her husband the principal defendant impleading two of sons, namely, Baljitinder Singh and Manjitinder Singh also as defendants. In the suit she claimed rendition of accounts with regard to mesne profits etc. in respect of the land, the area of which was 3689 kanals and 1 marla. She also prayed that she be declared to be the owner of the suit property. In paragraph 12 of the plaint it was pleaded that the plaintiff became the owner of the suit property by virtue of gifts made by the husband because he did not have any son and he wanted to marry another wife and he decided gift the property to her. It was alleged that the husband had been managing the land in suit on her behalf and had not paid her any profits received from the produce of the land. It was stated, inter alia, that on 25th January, 1960 defendant No. 1 (the husband) had instituted an application for divorce against the plaintiff in which an order was made by the Court on 7th December, 1960 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act that she should paid expenses to the extent of Rs. 700/- and maintenance at the rate of Rs. 350/- per mensum with effect from 13th May, 1960. Defendant No. 1 filed an appeal to this Court against that order but the same was dismissed. It was asserted that defendant No. 1 had not paid even a rupee towards the aforesaid amount. Defendant No. 1 filed a written statement pleading, inter alia that the gifts which had been made in respect of the suit land were purely benami transactions. It was further pleaded by him that according to the orders of the Court in the petition for dissolution of marriage the plaintiff had been awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/- per mensum and not Rs. 350/- and that the amount of expenses had been fixed at Rs. 400/- and not Rs. 700/-. He also claimed that he was the owner of the property and denied other allegations made by the plaintiff. During the pendency of the suit the parties came to a settlement and on 24th April, 1963 the Court recorded the following order :-

"At this stage the parties have volunteered to make their statements regarding the matters in dispute between them and their solution arrived at emicably between them. The statements of the parties and their counsel be recorded".

Sodhi Mohinder Singh then made a statement in the following terms :-

"Smt. Rajinder Kaur plaintiff shall be absolute owner of the land measuring 832 kanals 3 marlas situated in village Sodhi Nagar detailed in khatauni takseem Ex. C. 1 out of the land in dispute measuring 3689 kanals 1 marlas situated in the said village. I shall deliver possession of the land mentioned in Exhibit C. 1 to the plaintiff on or before 1st June, 1963. I will give vacant possession of this land to the plaintiff on or before 1st June, 1963. If any crops are standing on this land on the said date that I will deliver possession of the same with the standing crops on or before 1st June, 1963 and will not claim any compensation for the standing crops. The land is under my self-cultivation and I will not claim any tenancy rights in this land after 1st June, 1963. I shall pay all arrears of land revenue in respect of the land in dispute due up to 1st June, 1963 from Rajinder Kaur plaintiff regarding the land situated in village Sodhi Nagar, Kothi No. 72, Jhoke Road, Ferozepore Cantt, will remain the absolute property of the plaintiff. I shall not take any proceedings against the plaintiff under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce, judicial separation, nullity of marriage. If I fail to pay the land revenue in respect of the land mentioned in Exhibit C. 1 the plaintiff shall be entitled to realise 1 1/2 times of the amount so recovered from her by the Revenue Author