JUDGMENT

Zafar Ali, J. - The defendant petitioner Mt. Ram Rakhi by name, is the widow of the late Rai Sahib Lala Kundan Lal who, on 2nd November 1926, executed the will by which he bequeathed certain property to his son Mohan Lal, pleader, and Rs. 61,000 to his wife Mt. Ram Rakhi. Shortly after his death Mt. Ram Rakhi applied for probate of the will. Mohan Lal, who is her stepson, opposed this application and instituted a suit for a declaration that the will was invalid. The dispute between the widow and Mohan Lal ended in a compromise according to which Mt. Ram Rakhi paid him Rs. 25,000 which he pocketed and withdrew his objection to the will. But soon after this settlement the suit (which is still pending) was instituted on behalf of the two infant sons of Mohan Lal to avoid the will as well as the compromise made by him. An application was filed along with the plaint for a temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 1, Civil P.C., to restrain the widow from withdrawing the moneys that were deposited by her husband in the Punjab National Bank and the Sahukara Bank respectively for payment to her. The trial Court refused this application but on appeal the learned District Judge has granted the temporary injunction prayed for.

2. The widow seeks revision of this order, and her learned Counsel, Mr. Shamair Chand contends that the learned District Judge had no jurisdiction to make that order without recording a finding to the effect that the infant plaintiffs had a prima facie case. He argues that, as held by a Division Bench of this Court in Maya Wanti v. Salig Ram A.I.R. 1927 Lah. 620 the infant plaintiffs are bound by the compromise made by their father unless it was proved that the latter did not act bona fide in making it. In that case also a compromise was made by a Hindu father and it was contested by his sons. A Division Bench of this High Court observed as follows:

It has been repeatedly laid down that a settlement of a doubtful claim by the father as the manager of the joint family entered into in good faith is binding upon his sons.

3. In the present case it is to be decided whether the plaintiffs are entitled to contest the compromise made by their father on the ground that it was not made bona fide. In the peculiar circumstances under which the suit has been instituted I am of opinion that the temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 1, Civil P.C., should not have been granted without recording a finding as to whether there is a bona fide contention between the parties and the plaintiffs have a prima facie case. The moneys in the two banks amount to Rs. 40,000 and not to Rs. 61,000 as stated in the judgment of the learned District Judge. There is nothing to indicate that the widow will waste this large amount or would be able to withheld them if the plaintiffs should succeed in their suit. I, therefore, accept this petition for revision and set aside the order of the Court below. The plaintiff will pay the petitioner's costs in this Court.