JUDGMENT

Iqbal Ahmad, J. - This is an appeal by Sat Deo Prasad, minor, an unsuccessful plaintiff, whose suit for a declaration that the compromise decree in suit No. 233 of 1933 of the Court of the Munsif, West Allahabad, was conclusive and void and was not binding on him (the plaintiff) has been dismissed by both the Courts below. The parties to the present suit are descended from one Bhagwan Prasad and their family pedigree is as follows:

                BHAGWAN PRASAD                      |            Debi Badal, defendant 1. _______________________|__________________ |                      |                  |Mathura Prasad   Dwarka Prasad,         Mahadeo   =              defendant 3.          Prasad,Inder Koer,                         defendant 2.   widow,                            |defendant 4.               Sat  Deo, plaintiff.

2. It appears that suit No. 233 of 1933 was filed on behalf of Sat Deo Prasad by his mother, Mt. Bhagwati Devi, who acted as his next friend in the suit. The defendants to that suit were amongst others Debi Badal, Dwarka Prasad and Inder Kuer. As Mt. Bhagwati Devi was a pardanashin lady she appointed one Balgobind as an attorney to look after the prosecution of the case. The powers given to Balgobind were evidenced by a registered power of attorney dated 8th May 1933. By this deed Balgobind was inter alia authorized to file a compromise. The Urdu words used in the document were 'sulahnama dakhil karen. An advocate named B. Mahabir Prasad was appointed a pleader on behalf of the plaintiff by means of vakalatnama that was signed by Bhagwati Devi. By the vakalatnama extensive powers concerning the conduct and prosecution of the suit were given to B. Mahabir Prasad and he was inter alia authorized to appoint arbitrators, to file compromise (sulahnama dakhil karen) and to file documents and it was stated in the vakalatnama that all the acts done by B. Mahabir Prasad would be, accepted by Sat Deo Prasad, plaintiff. In short wide and extensive powers were conferred on B. Mahabir Prasad by the vakalatnama.

3. Suit No. 233 was contested by the defendants and on the date of the recording of evidence the parties entered into a compromise when the trial Judge was actually recording the statement of Balgobind. It has been found by the Courts below that the terms of the compromise were discussed by the parties or their pleaders in the presence of the presiding Judge and after the terms were settled the counsel for the parties made a statement concerning those terms and that statement was recorded and signed by Balgobind and the pleaders of the parties. In short, it is manifest from the findings recorded by the Courts below that the compromise was not a hole and corner affair but was arrived at in open Court after mutual discussion between the parties. The plaintiff appellant assailed the validity of the compromise on four grounds. He alleged that his mother, who was his next friend, gave no instructions for the compromise to any person whatsoever. Secondly he alleged that Balgobind was under the influence of Debi Badal who was one of the defendants in suit No. 233. Thirdly he alleged that the compromise was entered into without the permission of the Court and lastly he asserted that the compromise was prejudicial to his interest.

4. The contention of the plaintiff that the compromise was entered into without the permission of the Court was baseless. It has been found by both the Courts below that the requisite permission to enter into a compromise on behalf of the plaintiff, who was a minor, was given by the presiding officer of the Court. The question whether the compromise was or was not for the benefit of the minor had no material bearing on the decision of the present suit unless the compromise was vitiated on any of the grounds alleged by the plaintiff. If the compromise was otherwise valid and binding the question whether or not it was for the benefit of the plaintiff cannot now be debated and discussed. Th