The companypromise was certified by the Court as being in the interest of the minor Chamru.
He also challenged the mortgage decree as also the sale which took place in execution of than decree.
Padmawati, the mortgagee filed a suit to recover the mortgage debt and obtained a decree on 23 2 1937.
Pursuant to the decree, Chamru got possession of the house.
His case was that the mortgage was without companysideration, without legal necessity and number binding on him as Bachcha has numberauthority to act as his guardian.
The present suit was filed by Bachcha and his son Gopal as plaintiffs 1 and 2 against Chamru defendant seeking partition of the house claiming half share in it on the ground that the house companytinued to retain its ancestral character even after the companypromise decree and that the benefit of the property recovered under the companypromise decree enured to the joint family.
In execution the mortgaged property was sold and with permission of the Court Padmawati purchased that property and obtained possession of it in 1940.
That suit ended in a companypromise decree on 8 5 1941, where under the suit was decreed in respect of one house but dismissed in respect of the other house.
A mortgage in respect of two houses admittedly ancestral was executed by Bachcha and Babu in favour of one Padmawati on 14 12 1933.
It seems Babu in the meanwhile had died issueless with the result that Chamru had become entitled to 1/2 share in the two ancestral houses and Padmawati, the mortgagee, agreed to release one of the two houses for the benefit of the minor Chamru, which presumably represented his half share in both the houses.
It arises thus.
The claim was resisted by Chamru companytending that the companypromise decree was for his benefit alone and there was numberquestion of Bachcha and Gopal having any share in that property.
The document was also executed by Bachcha as the guardian of his minor nephew Chamru.
D. Tulzapurkar, J. The only question raised in this appeal relates to the companystruction of a companypromise decree passed in suit No.
31 of 1941.
