1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition. For a proper understanding of the case it is necessary to set out the genealogical the given below.

GOKULPEASAD | (1st wife dead) = Bamcbaranlal = Cbandramukhi |(defendant 1) | defendant 4 _________ | | | | | Deviprasad ___________________________ (defendant 3) | | Mneshecandra Mandliprasad (defendant 2) (plaintiff).

2. Respondent 8, Deviprasad is the son of respondent 1, Ramcbaranlal by his first wife who is dead. Respondent 4, Chandramukhi is the second wife of Ramcharanlal. Respondent 2, Dioeshchahdra and appellant Mandliprasad are their sons who are minors. Ramcharanlal has three daughters from Chandramukhi but we are not concerned with them in the present appeal.

Chandramukhi filed Civil Suit No. 6-A of 1937 on 27-9-1937 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Bilaspur, for partition of movable and immovable property on behalf of herself and as a next friend of her son Dineshchandra, who was described as a child of 7 years, against her husband Ramcharanlal and her stepson Deviprasad. She claimed that each of the par-ties was entitled to 1/4th share in the property and prayed for partition. The property sought to be partitioned consisted of 16 share of Bagbamunda which was ancestral property in the hands of Ramcharanlal, tenancy land at mauza Fandwani, houses at Mungeli and Baghamunda, grain, cattle, pots and pans. The family had also to pay debts to the extent of Rs. 2250/- to creditors whose names were mentioned in the schedule filed along with the plaint. The reason alleged for seeking partition was that the property was being mismanaged and wasted on account of the frequent quarrels of Ramcharanlal with his son Deviprasad and that partition was necessary to protect the interest of her minor son Dineshchandra.

Deviprasad contested the right of Chandramukhi to a share and stated that she was merely entitled to maintenance. He stated that he had no objection to the partition being effected and a share allotted to Dineshchandra.

3. The trial Court found that Chandramukhi was also entitled to a quarter share and passed a preliminary decree for partition on 7-12-1987 and specified that each of the parties was entitled to a quarter share and directed that partition of landrevenue paying estate be effected by the Collector and of the rest of the property by a commissioner. Commissioners were appointed successively to make a partition but no partition was actually effected. On 8-8-1938 the trial Court granted time to the parties as they stated that they were going to compromise and effect a partition out of Court.

4. Further time was granted on 24-8-1988 and the case was fixed for 31 8-1938. In the mean time, the parties effected a division of property through arbitrators who delivered' their award on 28-81988. Under that award Dineshchandra (plaintiff) and Ramcharanlal {his father) and Deviprasad (his half brother) were each given 1/3rd share. On the application of the plaintiffs, the Court; granted permission to Chandramukhi to compromise the case but directed that the terms of the compromise be intimated to the Court in order to enable it to find out if the compromise was for the benefit of the minor. The case was fixed for 2-4-1938. On that date the parties filed an application under Order 23, Rule 8, Civil P.C. for drawing up a decree in accordance with the terms of the award. The application was signed by Chandramukhi for herself and as a guardian of her minor son Dineshchandra and by the defendants.

5. The defendants filed in Court the award dated 28-3-1988 delivered by the arbitrators. In the order sheet of that date the Court recorded that an application had been made for sanctioning the compromise and that it would persue the terms of the compromise and pass orders. On 22-4-1938 the Court recorded the statements ' of the parties regarding the compromise and passed an order that the compromise was for the benefit of the minor as he was getting a quarter sha