(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal. One Baren Singh died leaving a brother, Sahib Dayal, and a widow, Mt. Maharaji. Mt. Maharaji on 23rd January 1930, executed a deed of gift in favour of her daughter, Mt. Sukhraji, and her daughter's son Chittan Singh. A Suit (No. 107 of 1930) was filed by Sahib Dayal, brother of Baran Singh, for the cancellation of this deed of gift on the ground that Baran Singh was a member of a joint Hindu family with Sahib Dayal and on Baran Singh's death the property came to Sahib Dayal and his son, Lakhan Singh, by survivorship and that the widow had no right to execute the deed of gift in favour of her daughter or daughter's son. The daughter's son, Chittan Singh, was a minor and was impleaded under the guardianship of his father. On 27th March 1931, the parties settled the terms and the guardian of the minor, Chittan Singh, applied for permission to enter into a compromise under O. 32, R. 7, Civil P. C. Permission was granted, the compromise was entered into and a decree was passed in terms of the compromise. Under this compromise Sahib Dayal and Lakhan Singh got a nine-anna share in the property and Mt. Sukhraji and her son, Chittan Singh, got the remaining seven, anna share. On the death of Mt. Maharaji the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, was filed by Mt. Sukhraji and Chittan Singh for possession of nine-anna share of the property that was given to Sahib Dayal and Lakhan Singh under the compromise decree of 1931. Defendants relied on the previous compromise and urged that the suit was not maintainable. The suit was dismissed by the lower Courts and Chittan Singh plaintiff has filed this second appeal.
(2.) The only ground urged on his behalf is that the permission granted by the learned Judge was invalid as the learned Judge merely wrote the word "Allowed" and did not fulfil the requirements of the law as laid down by this Court in Kalawati v. Chedi Lal, 17 ALL 531 : (1895 A. W. N. 126).
(3.) Order 32, R. 7, Civil P. C., is in these terms :