1. The compromise is in our opinion admissible in evidence under the decision of the Privy Council in Bindesri Naik v. Ganga Saran Sahu I.L.R. (1897) A. 171. In that case their Lordships decided that petitions by the creditor accepted as correct by the debtor and presented to the Courts would have been admissible without registration in proof of a variation of a registered contract. These documents were described by their Lordships as pleadings filed by the parties and the 'compromise petition in the present case occupies a corresponding position. In Natesa Chetty v. Vengu Nachiar I.L.R. (1809) M. 102. to which one of us was a party and with which we both agree, this view was taken of the decision in Bindesri Naik v. Ganga Saran Sahu I.L.R. (1897) A. 171, and we do not find that it has been expressly dissented from in Chellamma v. Rama Rao I.L.R. (1911) M. 46, though in that case the learned Judges seem to put a different interpretation on the language of the Privy Council. Taking this view, it follows that, if the compromise, properly construed, evidences an actually effected release by the 3rd defendant of his rights in the family property, it is admissible in evidence and if, as is argued, it evidences only an agreement to give a release, then also it does not require registration.
2. We reverse the decree of the 'District Judge and remand the case to him; he will receive the document Exhibit A 3 in evidence and dispose of the appeal according to law. Costs will abide the event.