1. The appellant, Tulshi, obtained a decree for redemption of a mortgage against the defendants of the second party, cm the 29th of January 1917, in accordance with a compromise entered into by those parties. The present suit was instituted by five plaintiffs for a declaration that the compromise and the decree are not binding on them. These plaintiffs and the defendants of the second patty are members of a joint Hindu family. In the suit which was brought by Tulshi for redemption of mortgage he made all the adult members of the family parties to the suit, and all these adult members entered into the compromise, the result of which was that a decree was made in favour of Tulshi for redemption, on payment of Rs. 160 instead of Rs. 60 which in his plaint Tulshi had offered to pay. The Court of first instance decreed the plaintiff's claim but that decree was reversed by the lower Appellate Court which dismissed the suit on the ground that in the previous suit four of the plaintiffs, though not nominally parties to the suit, were in reality represented in it by the adult members of the family, one of whom was the managing member of that family. Upon second appeal to this Court, the learned Judge who heard the appeal decreed the claim practically, on the sole ground that the present plaintiffs were not named as defendants to the previous suit. We are unable to agree with that view of the learned Judge. If, as a matter of fact, the whole of the family was represented in the previous suit through the managing member of the family, the present plaintiffs must be taken to have been duly represented in that suit. It was not necessary that he should have been described as manager or that in the plaint it should have been stated specifically that the defendants to the suit represented not only themselves but also the minor members of the family. It was sufficient if, in reality, the whole of the family was represented by the persons who were named, as defendants to the suit. As has been stated above, in fact, every adult member of the family was made a defendant to the suit. It is true that it was unnecessary to make every adult member a defendant if they were represented by the managing member, but if, for the sake of precaution, the adult] members were made parties to the suit, that did not affect the real nature of the suit. This was the view which was held in the case of Hori Lal v. Nimman Kunwar 15 Ind. Cas. 126 : 34 A. 549 : 9 A.L.J. 819. The lower Appellate Court found that by reason of the compromise the present appellants were not prejudiced. The compromise was obviously a reasonable one, and nothing was, brought forward in this suit to show that the adult members of the family did not properly represent the interest of the plaintiffs in the previous litigation. In these circumstances, we are of opinion that the decree of the lower Appellate Court was right. We allow the appeal, set aside the decree of this Court and restore that of the lower Appellate Court. The appellant will have his costs of both hearings in this, Court.