A compromise petition can amount to a valid family settlement if it satisfies certain ingredients, and a party who voluntarily enters into a compromise and gains from it is estopped from challenging the compromise on the basis of a technicality.

K. N. Goyal, J.

1. KHATA No. 109 in dispute which consists of about 23 plots in all was recorded in the basic year khatauni in the name of Girdhari Lal, the original respondent no. 1 alone. The petitioner Sriram preferred a claim before the consolidation authorities contending that he had one-half share therein. Girdhari Lal and Sriram were descendants of a common ancestor. The Consolidation Officer allowed the petitioner's claim in respect of three plots only. On appeal preferred by the opposite party the Settlement Officer dismissed the claim of the petitioner and held that the entire land belonged to the opposite party. The petitioner filed a revision, and on that revision the Dy. Director upheld the petitioner's claim in respect of one half share over the entire holding and not merely in respect of three plots as had been held by the Consolidation Officer. Aggrieved by this decision of the Dy. Director the opposite party filed a Writ Petition No. 22 of 1975 in this court contending that the opposite party was the sole tenure holder of the land to the exclusion of the petitioner, that the judgment of the Settlement Officer was correct, and that the Dy. Director had wrongly interfered with that order. During the pendency of this writ petition a compromise petition was filed in this Court signed by both the parties and their counsel. A copy of that compromise petition dated 16-8-66 is Annexure C-1 to the counter-affidavit. This compromise petition consists of five paragraphs. The first paragraph recites the subject matter of the dispute ; the second paragraph recites the findings of the Dy. Director. The third paragraph runs as follows :-

"That the petitioner and opposite party no. 1 have now agreed that the petitioner be given half share of the half share of opposite party no. 1 in the said plots. The petitioner will thus get three fourth share in the said plots."

Para 4 then stated that out of the security money deposited by the petitioner in this court half be paid to the opposite party no. 1. Paragraph 5 stated that opposite parties 2 and 3 were discharged. This was followed by a prayer in which it was prayed that the court may be pleased to order that the compromise between the parties be recorded and. the petition be decided accordingly, and the consolidation authorities be directed to give effect to the compromise in their records. Upon this petition the following short order was passed by this Court :-

"In this writ petition a compromise duly verified before the Deputy Registrar has been filed. I am, therefore, of opinion that the writ petition shall be dismissed without any order as to costs. If the parties wish to enforce the terms of the compromise or to get possession, they shall enter into a proper agreement in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Sd. B. N. Nigam 16-8-1966"

2. THE terms of this order seem to have emboldened the petitioner subsequently to repudiate the aforesaid compromise. THEreupon, the opposite party filed a suit under Section 229-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act in the Revenue Court about two years later. THE plaint of this suit has not been placed on the record but a copy of the same has been shown to me during the course of hearing by the learned counsel for the petitioner with the consent of the learned counsel for the opposite parties. THE plaint recites the course of the earlier litigation, and the opposite party ultimately rests his claim on the order of the Settlement Officer which was in his favour and in the alternative on the aforesaid compromise. Thus it was prayed that the opposite party be declared to be the sole , tenure-holder of the said khata or in the alternative to be co-sharer to the extent of three-fourths the share therein. THE suit was contested by the petitioner. It was contended that this court itself had not recorded or given effect to the compromise and the consolidation autho