1. We are of opinion that the so-called compromise in Suits Nos. 496 and 497 of 1889 is not binding on the reversioner. Subbammal v. Avudaiyammal 30 M. 3, is not in point. Since there the widow was the defendant and the decree was on a claim binding on the inheritance, and there was a question of doubt which was settled by the compromise. The appellant is not entitled to raise the question of partition between father and son. The Munsif’s finding on this question was against her and she apparently did not rely on the partition before the Subordinate Judge. At any rate there is no ground of appeal with regard to this.
2. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.