Malla Reddi and Others vs Aswaratha Reddi and Others

We think that the compromise evidenced by the Exhibits II and III entered into in 1890 between the plaintiff (who was then a minor) through his

grand-mother and guardian Somakka on the one hand and the 1st defendant on the other hand, is a valid and binding compromise and that the

plaintiff is not at liberty to dispute it now.

At the time the compromise was entered into, each party claimed to be himself entitled to the whole of the property of the deceased. Somi

Reddi denied the title of the other to any part of it The plaintiff, through his grand-mother, claimed to be entitled, by virtue of his adoption by

Tirumal Reddi, the grandson of Somi Reddi, but this adoption and the will alleged to have been made at the same time, were both drafted by the

first defendant, Malla Reddy, who was then in possession of the property, and who claimed to be entitled to the whole of it as the illatom son-in-

law of Somi Reddy. His position as an illatom son-in-law had been acknowledged and recorded as long ago as 1852 in Exhibit II which was

executed by Somi Reddy and by his eldest son Pedda Venkata Reddi.

It may be a question whether his status as an illatom son-in-iaw could have been maintained at law when Somi Reddi had sons of his body, but

it is not necessary to decide that question. Even if he could not maintain his position as a legal illatom son-in-law, it is by no means clear that he

could not have maintained his right to Somi Reddi''s property by virtue of the contract entered into with Somi Reddi, to live with him and manage

his affairs, and in return to be given a son''s share in the property, on the principle referred to in the cases of Ghalla Papi Reddi v. Chillakoti Reddi

I.L.R., 7 M.H.C. R., 25 and Hanumantamma v. Rama Reddi I.L.R., 4 M. 272.

But whatever the actual legal rights of the first defendant were, it is clear that he was in possession of the property of Somi Reddy and he

claimed a right to hold it against the plaintiff and he had solid grounds for his claims. Thus, there was a fair subject for a compromise and the

plaintiff''s grandmother had the advice and assistance of her brother Runga Reddi who appears to be a man of affairs. There is no ground for

saying that he and 1st defendant colluded together so that both might benefit at the expense of the minor. The 1st defendant appears to have

compromised his own suit with Ranga Reddi because his witnesses had been gained over and he could not prove his defence of discharge in that

suit.

It seems to us that compromise evidenced by the Exhibits II and III was bonafide one in settlement of a [real existing dispute in which the rights

of both parties were uncertain, and that it was in the interest of the minor plaintiff who thus secured half the property without the expense and

uncertainty attendant on pressing his claim at law. He cannot now turn round and when his adoption has been admitted by this compromise

repudiate it so far as it admits the 1st defendant''s title to the other half of the property. Both parties are bound by it.

On this ground we must reverse the decree of the District Judge and dismiss the plaintiff''s suit with the appellant''s costs throughout.