Compromise on behalf of minors without leave is voidable, and Section 97 bars later challenge to the preliminary decree.

A compromise entered on behalf of minors without the court's recorded leave under Order 32, Rule 7 is not void; it is voidable at the minor's instance and does not affect the court's jurisdiction. The defect cannot be relied on by other parties for their own benefit. Section 97 further bars a party from disputing the correctness of a preliminary decree in an appeal against the final decree when no appeal was filed against the preliminary decree. The challenge to the preliminary decree was therefore barred, and the objection could not be raised in the final decree appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether a preliminary decree passed on a compromise entered into on behalf of minors without leave of the court was void or merely voidable, and whether such decree could be challenged in an appeal against the final decree when no appeal had been filed against the preliminary decree.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of Order 32, Rule 7 shows that a compromise entered into without the court's recorded leave is not void; it is voidable at the instance of the minor and is intended to protect the minor's interest. Non-compliance does not affect the jurisdiction of the court, and the infirmity cannot be invoked by other parties to avoid the compromise for their own benefit. Section 97 of the Code then bars a party aggrieved by a preliminary decree from disputing its correctness in an appeal against the final decree if no appeal was filed against the preliminary decree. Allowing a challenge to the legal validity of the preliminary decree in the final decree appeal would defeat the purpose of Section 97.

Conclusion: The preliminary decree was only voidable and could not be challenged in the appeal against the final decree. The objection was barred by Section 97.

---