JUDGMENT

Scott-Smith, J. - This first appeal was heard along with Civil Appeal No. 735 of 1917 and we shall hare occasion to refer to the printed paper book in that case which we call Paper Book "B," the Paper Book in the present case being marked as "A." The pedigree table of the parties is given on page 89 of paper book "B." Plaintiffs are the sons of Arjan Singh and defendants are the descendants of Gulab Singh. Gulab Singh was originally entitled to 1/3rd share of the joint land belonging to the descendants of Jamiat Singh. In 1863 Gulab Singh's heirs sued and got a decree for their 1/3rd share conditional on payment of Rs. 415 (see page 69 of the paper book "B."). This money was never paid. In 1882 Gulab Singh's descendants again sued for their father's share, but the suit was dismissed, it being held that the decision in the 1863 case barred a fresh suit and that the defendants had held adverse possession since 1863. In 1897 Gulab Singh's descendants sued Arjan Singh and Surjan Singh for one-half of their father's share of the land i.e. for 1/6th of the whole property, saying that they had already got possession of 1/6th. Their suit failed. On the 21st of January 1909 Arjan Singh sued the defendants for possession of 1/6th share of the property i.e., for half of Gulab Singh's original share. The defend ants plead long possession. Arjan Sing said that they had taken forcible possession subsequent to the previous suit i.e., the 1897 suit. He said that they used to pay a share of the produce, that they paid it for nine years and that they ceased to pay it for the previous two years, in other words he admitted that they had been in possession for eleven years. Issued were framed on the 15th of April 1909, but on the 3rd of May, the date fixed for evidence, the parties asked for an adjournment as they wished to compromise. 28th of May was then fixed and on that date the suit was compromised, Arjan Singh giving up his claim upon receipt of Rs. 200. The present suit has been brought by Arjan Singh's sons for a declaration that the compromise effected by their father in the 1909 case should not affect their reversionary rights after their father's death. The lower Court without going into the merits of the compromise, held that it did not amount to an alienation which could be contested by reversioners. It, therefore, dismissed the suit.

2. Plaintiffs have tiled an appeal to this Court and it is contended on their behalf that they can certainly bring a suit to contest the compromise under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act.

3. Their counsel admitted that having regard to Buta v. Khuda Bakhsh 97 P.R. 1906 and other authorities a compromise entered into in good faith binds a man's heirs, but urged that they are entitled to challenge the compromise on the ground that it was not entered into in good faith.

4. This point was not contested by Dr. Nand Lal on behalf of the respondents, and it is quite clear to us that the lower Court was wrong in dis-| missing the suit on this preliminary point. We have, therefore, heard arguments as to the merits of the compromise and as to whether it was entered into in good faith or not.

5. As already pointed out Arjan Singh admitted in the 1909 suit that the defendants had been in possession of the 1/6th share claimed by him for 11 years. The suit was instituted on the 21st of January 1909 which means that the defendants were in possession at all events in January 1898. Now, the previous suit brought by them in which they said they were in possession of 1/6th and claimed the other 1/6th was dismissed on the 19th of June 1897. How they got possession of this 1/6th we have no means of knowing, but it seems at least probable that the 1/6th which Arjan Singh claimed in the suit instituted in January 1909 was the same1/6th of which the defendants said they were in possession in the suit brought by them in 1897.

6. If this were so, Arjan Singh might very well have thought that he would not succeed in his su