Compromise settlement accepted by the Supreme Court, with directions enforcing payment, property allotment, and withdrawal of attachment.

The Supreme Court accepted a settlement placed by the parties and disposed of the appeal in terms of that compromise. It treated the revised arrangement as reasonable and just, and gave effect to it by directing payment of money, allotment of property, withdrawal of attachment, and allocation of lands by an agreed neutral person whose decision on allotment was final. The settlement thus superseded the earlier arrangement, and the appeal ended with implementation of the compromise and no order as to costs.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal should be disposed of in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties, and the consequential terms of settlement.

Analysis: The parties placed a settlement before the Court, superseding the earlier arrangement. The Court accepted the compromise as reasonable and just, and moulded relief accordingly by directing payment of money, allotment of property, withdrawal of attachment, and allocation of lands by an agreed neutral person whose allotment would be final.

Conclusion: The appeal was disposed of in terms of the compromise, with directions implementing the settlement and without any order as to costs.

---