1. Balkishen and Mulchand were brothers separate in estate. Mulchand died leaving a son Bhagirath. In execution of a decree obtained by Bhagirath, a share in a village called Jaswan was put up for sale and purchased by, or at all events in the name of Balkishen. The last named was succeeded by his son Ganesh, who died in 1888, leaving a widow, Musammat Gango. Bhagirath put forward a claim to the share in Jaswan. The dispute was referred to the arbitration of three persons but before an award could be made, the parties agreed that the share in Jaswan should go to Bhagirath and that a share in a village called Karauri standing in the names of Ganesh and Bhagirath should go to Musammat Gango and at the same time other properties were allotted to one party or the other. An award was made in terms of this agreement. In 1904, Gango gave the share in Karauri to her daughter's son, the present plaintiff. She died in 1903. In 1892, Bhagirath sold the share in Jaswan to a Musammat Waliunnissa, from whom it was taken under a pre-emption decree by the predecessor of the defendants. Thus there have been several dealings with the properties included in the award. In the present suit instituted in 1910, the plaintiff seeks to recover the share in Jaswan on the ground that he is not bound by the compromise and award made thereon. The Subordinate Judge decreed the claim but his decision was reversed by the District Judge, who upheld the compromise on the ground that it was a reasonable settlement of the dispute between Musammat Gango and Bhagirath. The learned Judge was disposed to think that Balkishen and Bhagirath must have been joint owners of the share in Jaswan as both were recorded as holders of sir and khudkasht and Bhagirath's name remained in the khasra after the death of Balkishen. In second appeal, it is contended that Musammat Gango, being the holder of a limited interest in the property, had no power to surrender it to Bhagirath in such a way as to bind the reversionary heirs' of her husband. In our opinion, there is no force in the contention. The case appears to be covered by the decision of the Privy Council in Khunni Lal v. Kunwar Gobind Krishna 33 A. 356; 15 C.W.N. 545; 8 A.L.J. 552; 13 C.L.J. 575; 13 Bom. L.R. 427; 10 M.L.T. 25; (1911) 2 M.W.N. 432; 21 M.L.J. 645; 38 I.A. 87; 10 Ind. Cas. 477 and the decision of this Court in Madan Lal v. Chuttan Singh 10 A.L.J. 101; 15 Ind. Cas. 297. The compromise, which has been found to be a reasonable settlement, was designed to put an end to a family dispute which would otherwise have resulted in minor litigation. On the authorities, it is impossible to treat the compromise as an alienation valid only if it can be shown to be justified by necessity. The appeal is dismissed with costs. Fees on the higher scale.