Lawful compromise in partition suits and the Bombay rule on adopted son's share controlled the outcome.

A partition suit compromise relating to the subject-matter of the suit could not be defeated by the plaintiff's unilateral withdrawal, because the special procedure for recording a lawful compromise prevails over general liberty to withdraw and binds rights already accrued. On the succession issue, the Bombay rule was applied in preference to the Madras and Bengal approach under the Dattaka Chandrika, so the adopted son was not treated as equal to an after-born son. The distribution of shares followed the established local rule, and the trial court's decree was affirmed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaintiff could withdraw the partition suit so as to defeat the compromise already arrived at between the parties; (ii) Whether the adopted son was entitled to an equal share with the after-born son or only to the share recognised by the settled Bombay rule.

Issue (i): Whether the plaintiff could withdraw the partition suit so as to defeat the compromise already arrived at between the parties.

Analysis: The parties had signed a written compromise which related to the subject-matter of the suit and was capable of being recorded by the Court. In a partition suit, a defendant claiming a share stands in the position of a plaintiff for that purpose, and the plaintiff's unilateral withdrawal cannot destroy rights already accrued under a lawful compromise. The Court held that the special procedure for recording a compromise prevails over the general liberty to withdraw a suit, and that the compromise could be given effect to notwithstanding the plaintiff's attempt to recede from it.

Conclusion: The plaintiff could not withdraw so as to defeat the compromise, and the agreement was rightly recorded and acted upon.

Issue (ii): Whether the adopted son was entitled to an equal share with the after-born son or only to the share recognised by the settled Bombay rule.

Analysis: The Court declined to extend the Madras and Bengal rule of equality under the Dattaka Chandrika to this Presidency. It treated the existing Bombay authority as governing the field and applied the principle of stare decisis. On that basis, even assuming the parties were Sudras, the adopted son was not entitled to an equal share with the after-born son; the established Bombay rule gave the adopted son a smaller fraction. The wives' entitlement on partition and the distribution of the deceased's share followed the same arithmetical basis.

Conclusion: The adopted son was entitled only to 1/21 of the estate, while the other shares were correctly fixed at 4/21 each as determined by the Court below.

Final Conclusion: The decree of the trial Court was affirmed, the appeal failed, and the cross-objections also failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A lawful compromise in a partition suit cannot be nullified by the plaintiff's unilateral withdrawal, and the long-established local rule governing the adopted son's share will be followed rather than imported rules from another Presidency.

---