Family settlement by compromise is not alienation by a limited owner; independent title recognition restored the decree.

A compromise recorded as a family settlement was treated as a recognition of independent title, not as an alienation by a limited owner of family property. On that footing, each party was understood to take a share under the arrangement rather than through a transfer of the limited owner's interest. The challenged decree could not stand on the assumption of alienation, and the decree in favour of the appellants was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the compromise was an alienation by a limited owner or a family settlement conferring shares by recognition of independent title, and whether the appeal should be allowed.

Analysis: The compromise was treated as falling within the principle that a family arrangement, by way of compromise, is not an alienation by a limited owner of the family property. Each party was held to take a share of the family property in recognition of an independent title admitted by the others. On that basis, the decree under challenge could not stand.

Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, the High Court decree was set aside, and the District Judge's decree was restored.

Final Conclusion: The compromise was upheld as a family settlement rather than an alienation, with the result that the appellants succeeded and the decree in their favour was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: A compromise constituting a family settlement, under which parties take shares in recognition of independent title, is not an alienation by a limited owner of family property.

---