The judgment establishes that a compromise that does not transfer property rights and subsequent acquisition of indefeasible title by a party extinguishes the claim based on the compromise.

Findlay, J C—A somewhat interesting question of law arises in the present case. The following genealogy is not disputed.

Lachhman | | __________________________________________________ | | Hiraman=Mt. Kasturibai Amarsingh | | | | Tikaram=Two widows Subheti ____________________________________ | Kalan and Subheti | | | | | Khurd Hatisingh=Buiani Bhairon Durga Nathuram | | Bai Prasad | |(daft. 8) | | | |_______________________ | | | Bhagwan Prasad (adopted by Ramcharan (defendant 1.) Roshanlal (defendant 2.) (plaintiff). Subheti Khurd.)

2. Hiraman was the owner, amongst other property, of mouza Bagdari (Chh-indwara) and of the sir and khudkasht fields therein mentioned in para. 9 of the plaiafc. He died about 1869, having been predeceased by his son Tikaram. Hiraman also owned mouza Lingpani, mouza Bhaliwara and an eight annas share of mouza Bilanda On Hiraman's death, the property went to his widow Mt. Kasturibai; she died in 1886, and the two widows of Tikaram Subheti Kalan and Subheti Khurd then took possession of the property. During their lifetime about 1890, they effected a partition of the property as follows: Subheti Kalan took mouza Bhaliawara and the eight annas share of mouza Bilanda, and Subheti Kburd took mouza Lingpani and mouza Bagdari. The present plaintiff is said to have been adopted by Subheti Khurd in 1892; Subheti Kalan had the adoption declared null and void in a litigation which progressed about the year 1901.

3. In 1909, Sabheti Kalan executed a will in favour of Bamoharan (defendant l), and placed him in possession of the property held by her. Subheti Khurd, thereupon, was on the point of filing a suit for cancelling the will and for recovery of the property held by Ram-charan, but the two ladies effected a mutual settlement, whereby it was agreed that neither of them should disturb the transfers made by the other. As a result of this settlement, defendant 1 continued to hold Bhaliwara and the eight annas share of mouza Bilanda, while Subheti Khurd, in 1912, made a gift of mouza Bagdari to the plaintiff and gave him possession of mouza Ling-pani and other property in 1921 shortly before her death. Prior to this in 1916. Subheti Khurd had filed Civil Suit No, 33 of 1916 in the Court of the District Judge, Chhindwara, against Ramcharan and others for possession of the property he held. The case came up on second appeal to this Court and, during the pendency of the said second appeal, a compromise was arrived at between Snb-heti Khurd and the defendant, whereby, inter alia, the former recognized the latter as the owner of the property concerned in the said suit, while the latter declared that he had no rights over mouzas Bagdari and Lingpani and agreed to recognize the gift of mouza Bagdari made by Subheti Khurd in favour of the plaintiff.

4. We now come to the year 1921. In that year, Subheti Khurd died. The father of Ramcharan, Harisingh, filed Civil Suit No. 147 in the year 1922 in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge, Chhindwara, against the plaintiff and his father Gopal Prasad for possession of the 16 annas share of mouza Bagdari and Lingpani and succeeded in getting possession from the Court. Harisingh died in 1925 and, on his death, Ramcharan and his brother Roshanlal succeeded to the property obtained by their father in Civil Suit No. 147 of 1922.

5. Plaintiff's case apparently was that the defendant Ramoharan was bound by the compromise in suit No. 33 of 1916 and was bound to restore mouza Bagdari to him. The Sabordinate Judge, by his order of 21st August 1926, held that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action and returned it for amendment. The amendment made, as shown by the Subordinate Judge in his order of 14th September 1926, left matters, to all intents and purposes, as had previously been, and the Subordinate Judge accordingly dismissed the suit. Against this judgment, dated 14th September 1926, the plaintiff has now come up on appeal.

6. The main contention urged on behal